UN: Current climate plans will deliver only a 6% emissions cut, while the ultra-rich profit from the crisis

Countries' commitments fall far short of the Paris Agreement goals

A new UN report published on 27 October shows that current national climate plans cannot be relied upon to keep warming within safe limits. According to euronews, the combined commitments of 154 countries, covering 71% of global emissions, would cut global greenhouse gas emissions by only 6% by 2035 compared with 2019 levels. This is worse than last year's projection of 10% — mainly due to the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Scientists say a 60% reduction is needed to keep warming within 1.5 °C; even if all mandatory and conditional targets are fully met, the reduction would be only about 9%. For the agreement's fallback target of 2 °C, emissions would need to fall by 37% by 2035.

The world is heading towards breaching the 1.5 °C limit

The report was released against the backdrop of a UN warning issued earlier in October: the world is heading towards a temporary or potentially prolonged breach of the 1.5 °C limit. Against this background, the EU's climate official warned that countries should prepare for a possible temperature rise of 3 °C by 2100.

Private money is growing but does not make up for the failure

In a second UN report, also published on 27 October, it is noted that global climate finance is growing but still lags far behind what is needed. In 2023–2024 it averaged $1.9 trillion (€1.7 trillion) per year — 32% more than in 2021–2022. The growth was largely driven by private investment in low-carbon technologies and household spending on electric vehicles, solar panels and heat pumps. The question arises: can private investment compensate for insufficient government efforts? A report by Oxfam, published ahead of the COP31 negotiations in Turkey, answers no — at least when it comes to the wealthiest investors, whose market incentives, the organisation argues, often push in the opposite direction.

The 'double windfall' of the ultra-rich

In its report 'The Catastrophe Rift: How Climate Chaos Deepens Inequality and Enriches the Few' , Oxfam presented a 'Destruction and Recovery Index', analysing 217 companies — both from climate-destroying industries and from the disaster preparedness and recovery segments. According to the organisation, these companies earned an average of $1.8 billion in profits in 2025 and paid shareholders an average of more than $1 billion. The global disaster recovery market is projected to grow from $70 billion to $92 billion a year by 2029. Oxfam describes this as 'profiteering from suffering' and a 'double windfall': first profits from the industries causing climate collapse, then from the recovery business.

Billionaires' emissions and the price of inequality

According to Oxfam's estimate, the investments of the world's 1,000 richest billionaires in 2025 were linked to 486 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent — if they were a country, they would rank 19th among polluters. 71% of these investments are in high-emission sectors: oil, gas and the chemical industry. The organisation also points out that the wealthiest have a disproportionate influence on emissions: the richest 0.1% of the population — about eight million people — emit more than the poorest 44% of humanity (roughly 3.5 billion people) combined. The emissions of the richest 1%, according to Oxfam's calculations, are responsible for about 20% of global warming since 1990, and one year of their emissions is estimated to lead to 1.9 million additional deaths from heat over the next century. Calling climate disasters 'machines of inequality', Oxfam cites a study in Nature, according to which mortality from floods is seven times higher in countries with greater inequality. Oxfam calls on governments to limit the emissions of the ultra-rich, including those linked to their investments, to substantially increase grant-based adaptation finance from rich countries, and to stop profiteering from climate disasters. All the figures cited are the organisation's own estimates, not independent verification.