That is totally unsurprising. It's a pareto distribution, the richest 10% of the world are also, generally, the most productive 10%, likely accounting for about half of the total production of the world. The poorest 50% would be lucky to produce anything net of their most basic needs (they are effectively subsistence), they may well have a negative productivity over all. Some people think that re-distributing the wealth would fix this... it will not, all you would manage to do would be to waste about half of the wealth by doing so (a much simpler way to achieve that would be to dig a hole, put half your money into it and set it on fire). You would also cripple the most productive members of society, and since you rely on them for the majority of production, you get famine and death (see Kulaks).
In a developed economy, CO2 emission is basically a proxy for energy use, and energy use is a proxy for production. CO2 emission is only a problem if you believe in the "Climate Emergency" quasi-religion. CO2 does not control the climate, never has and never will. In fact, a good deal more CO2 would be highly beneficial as much of Earth's CO2 has been locked up in carbonate rocks over many millions of years of shelled and coral forming sea creatures sequestering it away. We've dropped from 7000ppm down to around 200ppm at the end of the little ice age (plants cease to grow at about 150ppm, so we were pretty close to a catastrophe there). As we come out of the little ice age, and as industrial activity releases CO2 from oil and coal, and to some extent lime stone (through cement production), CO2 levels are rising a bit. This will actually help the poorest the most, as the fertilization from increased CO2 provides an effectively free productivity boost for them.
There are problems caused by developed economies, such as pollution, which we should minimize as far as possible. Environmental damage is also an issue, but is more of an issue for poor countries. But, the emission of CO2 is not pollution at all. It could also be argued that developed economies are overly consumptive and are using up resources much too fast. Perhaps so, but the reason for this has more to do with the Ponzi scheme that is fiat money than with any sort of industrial practices. Unsound money causes mal-investment and enables corruption (more so than under a sound money system) that leads to a consumerist society. A return to sound money would be very painful in the short term, but would return the world to some semblance of sanity, for as long as it could be maintained.
(post is archived)