Who’s breaching the planetary boundaries?

Rampant consumption, unsustainable production, and unchecked resource extraction have driven the planet beyond the stable conditions of the Holocene, breaching critical planetary boundaries. Who bears the responsibility? While the capitalist supply system is undoubtedly a key driver, the wealthiest populations disproportionately contribute to this crisis: in 2017, the richest 10% of global consumers were responsible for 43% of carbon emissions, 23% of land-system changes, 26.1% of nitrogen fixation, 24.7% of phosphorus use, 18.5% of water consumption, and 37.2% of biodiversity loss. In contrast, the poorest 10% contributed less than 5.4% across any of these metrics. Per capita, the richest 10% imposed environmental burdens 4.2 to 77 times greater than those of the poorest. The inequality points to a logical solution: if the top 20% reduced their consumption to the lowest levels within their group, global environmental pressures could decrease by 25–53%. Addressing consumption patterns in food and services alone could reverse critical land-system changes and biodiversity loss, bringing these measures back within safe planetary limits.

Source: Tian, P., Zhong, H., Chen, X., Feng, K., Sun, L., Zhang, N., … & Hubacek, K. (2024). Keeping the global consumption within the planetary boundaries. Nature, 1-6.

The World’s priorities

The Global South isn’t disappearing—it’s increasingly global, as seen in widening income gaps, entrenched poverty, and the ongoing extraction of resources and labour-power toward the global North. This reflects a five-century-long expansion of capitalism, which dictates global priorities in investment, production, and consumption. These choices are shaped by powerful states, global institutions, corporations, and an affluent minority. The outcome? A global spending pattern that that all but prioritises the poor as shown in this graph. For instance, funding for universal basic education falls short of U.S. cosmetic spending alone, and ensuring water and sanitation for all costs less than Europe’s annual ice cream purchases. The numbers are from the late 1990s, but the message endures.

Source: Thomas, C. (1999). Where is the Third World now? Review of International Studies 25(5): 225-244.