Global Survey Finds 8 Out Of 10 People Support Taxing Oil And Gas Corporations To Pay For Climate Damages
Today's study, which was jointly commissioned by Greenpeace International and Oxfam International, was launched at the Bonn UN climate meetings (SB62 16-26 June), where governments are discussing key climate policy priorities, including ways to mobilize at least US $1.3 trillion annually in climate finance for Global South countries by 2035. The poll was conducted across 13 countries, including most G7 countries. The study, run by Dynata, comes with additional research by Oxfam showing that a polluter profits tax on 590 oil, gas and coal companies could raise up to US $400 billion in its first year. This is equivalent to the estimated annual costs of climate damage in the Global South. Loss and damage costs from climate change to the Global South are estimated to reach between $290bn to $580bn annually by 2030.
Key findings of the survey include:
81% of people surveyed support new taxes on the oil, coal and gas industry to pay for damages caused by fossil-fuel driven climate disasters like storms, floods, droughts and wildfires.
86% of people in surveyed countries support channelling revenues from higher taxes on oil and gas corporations towards communities who are most impacted by the climate crisis. Climate change is disproportionately hitting people in Global South countries, who are historically least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.
When asked who should be taxed to pay for helping survivors of fossil-fuel driven climate disasters, 66% of people across countries surveyed think it should be oil and gas companies compared to than 5% who support taxes on working people, 9% on goods people buy, and 20% in favour of business taxes.
68% felt that the fossil fuel industry and the super-rich had a negative influence on politics in their country. 77% say they would be more willing to support a political candidate who prioritises taxing the super-rich and the fossil fuel industry.
Oxfam's research finds that 585 of the world's largest and most polluting fossil fuel companies made $583 billion in profits in 2024, a 68% increase since 2019. The annual emissions of 340 of these corporations (for whom data was available) accounted for over half of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. Their emissions in just one year are enough to cause 2.7 million heat-related deaths over the next century. A polluter profits tax on these companies would ensure that renewable energy is more profitable than fossil fuels, encouraging companies to invest in renewables, as well as avoid more deaths driven by fossil fuelled climate change. This new tax must be accompanied by higher taxes on the super-rich and other polluting companies. Governments should impose such taxes nationally and engage positively at the UN to ensure a fair global tax agreement.
Nick Henry, Climate Justice Lead for Oxfam Aotearoa, said: "This new poll shows that people support Oxfam's call for our leaders to make polluting corporations pay for the damage they cause to our climate."
"People understand that storms, floods, drought, wildfires, and other extreme weather events are being fuelled by oil and gas corporations. Instead of leaving communities exposed to deal with these devastating costs alone, governments can unlock huge sums of money to invest in climate solutions through making dirty energy companies pay," said Rebecca Newsom, Global Political Lead for Greenpeace's Stop Drilling, Start Paying campaign. "The Polluters Pay Pact unites communities on the frontlines of climate disasters, concerned citizens, first responders like firefighters and humanitarian groups around the world to call on politicians to act now through making polluters, not people, pay for climate damages."
Amitabh Behar, Executive Director of Oxfam International, said: "Mega-rich coal, oil and gas companies have known for decades about the damage their polluting products wreak on humanity. Corporations continue to cash in on climate devastation, and their profiteering destroys the lives and livelihoods of millions of women, men and children, predominantly those in the Global South who have done the least to cause the climate crisis. Governments must listen to their people and hold rich polluters responsible for their damages. A new tax on polluting industries could provide immediate and significant support to climate-vulnerable countries and finally incentivise investment in renewables and a just transition."
Nick Henry continued: "Rather than subsidising new oil and gas drilling, and fast-tracking coal mines, our Government should be holding fossil fuel companies responsible for the costs facing our communities to adapt to climate change."
Notes:
The research was conducted by market research company Dynata in May-June, 2025, in Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Kenya, Italy, India, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK and the US. Together, these countries represent close to half the world's population. Results available here.
Oxfam's polluter profits tax model is explained in this blog and methodology note attached. The methodology note also explains the basis for the emissions of fossil fuel companies and their impacts on heat-related deaths. These deaths were calculated on the basis of emissions in 2023.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
‘It's a massive tax' - can Trump's tariffs reduce inequality, or will they enhance it?
The President doesn't talk much about inequality. But his animating argument for tariffs — that they will pressure companies to bring well-paid manufacturing jobs back to America — is pitched to those workers who felt left behind and neglected. So, will the tariffs reduce inequality? Probably not, and here's why. Hyper globalisation certainly contributed to America's rising inequality. Consumers saved hundreds of dollars on the cost of televisions, shoes, and comforters. But many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories either relocated to countries where wages were lower or went bust because they couldn't compete with cheap imports. China's entry into the global marketplace at the beginning of this century delivered a major wallop. Between 1999 and 2011, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. It is true that more jobs were created, but many of them did not pay as well as those that were eliminated, nor were they taken by the workers who lost out. Still, cheaper imports were only one part of the story. Automation and the creation of a digital economy that introduced online selling and cloud-based services had a far greater effect on the American economy. Take manufacturing. Of the six million factory jobs erased during the 2000s, Chinese imports accounted for about one-sixth of the losses, or one million jobs. But the other five million were killed off by other forces. For years, labour unions had bargained for higher wages, overtime pay and other benefits. But their ranks significantly declined. A street in Elyria, Ohio, once home to many manufacturing plants, on September 18, 2017. Many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories relocated to other countries. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times Automobile factories, for instance, not only moved from Michigan to Mexico, they also moved to southern states including Alabama and Tennessee, where anti-union laws were common and wages were lower. I visited a meat processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa, during Trump's first term. One of the workers was hired in 1980, when it was a union shop. His starting salary was US$16 an hour plus benefits. When I met him, 37 years later, that plant was no longer unionised, and his pay was still US$16 an hour. The growth of mega firms like Google, Apple, Amazon and Walmart that ate up or weeded out the competition also gave companies power over pricing and wages. The result was that the slice of the total economic pie going to workers shrank. If inequality has multiple causes, why do trade and globalisation get blamed so much? The fallout from globalisation packed a particular punch. Trade can cause economic losses to pile up and overwhelm a locale, such as Hickory, North Carolina, once a powerhouse of furniture making. Another reason is that political leaders exploit economic setbacks and insecurities. Trade offered a simple and satisfying explanation — even if not wholly accurate — that outsiders were to blame. For many people, foreign competition also set off deep cultural and economic anxieties. Diana Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that many Americans, including Trump, view trade as a zero-sum game rather than a co-operative enterprise in which everyone can benefit. Foxconn workers on an assembly line at Quanta factory in Chongqing, China, on November 27, 2012. In the early 2000s, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. Photo / Gilles Sabrie, The New York Times Through that lens, trade is a pitiless dogfight that is desirable only if the US is the 'winner' and other countries are losers. Americans also tend to expect the government to respond more strongly to job losses that result from trade compared with other economic forces. Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard University, helped conduct a large online survey in which respondents read a made-up newspaper article about the closure of a garment factory that provided different reasons for the shutdown. One group was told it was because of new technology. A second was told management bungling was the culprit. A third group was told trade, such as relocating production abroad, was the cause. When trade was the cause, the number of people who demanded that the government respond doubled or tripled. 'Foreign trade is particularly prone to charges of unfairness,' Rodrik writes, because countries operate under differing rules and conditions. Government subsidies, weaker health and environmental regulations or sweatshop conditions, for instance, bestow an unfair competitive advantage. For decades, 'fair trade' has been the rallying cry of protectionists who complained of an uneven playing field. A former glass factory is set up as a battery factory in Bridgeport, West Virginia, on February 9, 2023. Oren Cass, the chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that factories can boost regions that need it. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times That sounds like Trump's tariffs could make a difference, no? Tariffs can certainly affect how income is distributed — either increasing or decreasing inequality. Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that with the Trump tariffs, the effect would be positive. He argues that factories, often located outside of the tech, finance and media capitals, can boost regions that need it. A factory creates jobs and serves as an economic hub. That in turn generates other jobs — for barbers, baristas, and manicurists. 'Reorienting the economy toward one that is going to better serve the average worker,' could reduce inequality, Cass said. But other economists disagreed, arguing that the President's tariffs and the haphazard way they were imposed will amplify inequality. While some select industries will benefit from added protection, the biggest burden, they agreed, will fall on low- and middle-income households. The cost of pretty much everything will go up because of tariffs. 'It's a massive tax,' said Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law. She expects that four out of five Americans will be worse off. So far, the overall average effective tariff rate has jumped from 2.4% in early January to 18.3%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. On average, higher prices will end up costing each household an extra US$2400 this year. Shoes and clothing prices, for example, are expected to rise by as much as 40% in the short run, the Budget Lab estimated. Prices are expected to stay at 17% or 19% higher over the long run. US businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, will also feel the pinch of higher costs. Some 40% of imports are used to produce or build things in the US. Construction costs are likely to jump. The Budget Lab estimates that by the end of this year, US payrolls will shrink by nearly 500,000 jobs. As for manufacturing, the number of jobs might grow, but they won't be like the well-paid ones that high school graduates used to get. Most factories are highly automated and run with computer technology. Last year, the US steel industry employed 86,000 people and produced roughly 88 million tonnes of raw steel. In 1970, it took 354,000 steelworkers to produce that same amount, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. I recently visited one of the largest steel plants in Europe. I saw titanic machinery and control stations with computer screens, but hardly any workers on the floor. Today, the best paying manufacturing jobs require significant training and skills. Those that don't, offer low wages. At the moment there are more than 400,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the US. Even if the US$1.2 trillion trade deficit were erased, and purchases of foreign goods were replaced by domestic ones, the US would still not turn into a manufacturing powerhouse, said Robert Lawrence, an economist at Harvard University. Nor would it reduce inequality. Under that scenario, Lawrence calculated that manufacturing jobs would rise from 7.9% to just 9.7% of total employment. And less than half of those would actually involve work in production. The rest are in sales, management and accounting. Lawrence, whose book Behind the Curve examines the role that manufacturing plays in the economy, explained that 'even if all these policies were actually successful in bringing back as much manufacturing as possible, it's too small to change the basic income distribution in the economy.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Patricia Cohen Photographs by: Mark Abramson, Andrew Spear, Gilles Sabrie ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Hostage videos show emaciated Israelis, Hamas blames Israel for starvation
David's sister, Ye'ela, said watching the clip of her emaciated brother felt like 'one million punches to the heart'. She pleaded with the public not to share the images, as her mother and other brother had not yet seen the footage. Earlier on Thursday, the Islamic Jihad terrorist group released a video of hostage Rom Braslavski, 21, also looking emaciated. The terror group claimed the six-minute video was recorded days before it lost contact with the captors holding Braslavski, saying it did not know what had happened to him. His mother, Tami, said the terrorists had 'broken' her son. 'They broke my boy. I want him home now. I know how many beatings he is taking. Look at him. Thin, limp, crying. All his bones are out. Don't cry over the children in Gaza. Cry for Rom. Have compassion for the hostages,' she told Israeli media Ynet. With two hostage videos released in 24 hours, both of which blame Israel for starving the people of Gaza, Hamas seeks to increase international pressure on the Israeli Government. Aid agencies, including the UN, are warning that hunger and malnutrition may have reached a tipping point, raising fears of mass starvation. Israel has denied accusations of starving Palestinians, instead pointing the finger at the UN for failing to collect and distribute the food that enters through border crossings. US President Donald Trump said this week that starvation was happening in Gaza, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's denials. 'You can't fake that,' he said on Tuesday, adding that he was 'not particularly' convinced by his ally. Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East envoy, spent five hours visiting controversial aid distribution sites in the war-battered enclave on Friday. Witkoff, the first senior official to visit Gaza since the war began, said that what he learnt would help Washington 'craft a plan' to get more food and aid to Palestinians. On Friday, 126 aid packages, containing food for the residents of the southern and northern Gaza Strip, were airdropped by France, Spain, the UAE, Jordan, Egypt and Germany, the Israel Defence Forces said. Witkoff and Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador for Israel, toured one of the four sites run by the controversial Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Aid agencies have accused the foundation of contributing to the hunger crisis. More than 1300 people seeking aid in Gaza have been killed since GHF took over aid operations in late May, according to the UN, most of them shot by Israeli forces 'in the vicinity' of the aid hubs. GHF has denied the claims. Israel claims Hamas is looting aid for its own fighters, thus enabling accusations the Jewish state is deliberately starving Palestinians. Hamas denies this. Eli Sharabi, an Israeli former hostage, testified before the UN Security Council in March that 'Hamas eats like kings, while hostages starve'. Sharabi said: 'I saw Hamas terrorists carrying boxes with the UN and UNRWA emblems on them into the tunnels, dozens and dozens of boxes, paid for by your Government. They would eat many meals a day from the UN aid in front of us, and we never received any of it.'
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
The Panel with Chris Wikaira and Leonie Freeman Part 1
Tonight, on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Chris Wikaira and Leonie Freeman. To begin, it's D-Day for the US tariffs, and New Zealand has been hit with a 15% rate. This is a rise from the originally proposed 10%. Kate Acland, chair of Beef and Lamb NZ, joins the panel to unpack how much of an impat this will have on exports. Then, they revisit speed humps in Manurewa: are there too many, or is their presence justified? To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
