ESGs & Climate - SUSTAINIFY reposted this
Climate and Sustainability Leader, Advisor, and Expert; Founder- D. A. Carlin and Company
Who is most responsible for the global climate crisis? It depends on how you measure! Understanding responsibility for emissions has huge implications for global climate negotiations, future trade agreements, and even potential legal judgements. However, it’s not always so clear what the most appropriate way to apportion responsibility. Here are a few of the common approaches along with their benefits and drawbacks. Current annual emissions- the most direct way to evaluate a nation’s emissions in a given year. These are absolute emissions, so they say how much of a contribution to climate change any nation has in a given year. However, they don’t consider the size of the nation nor its historical emissions. Historical emissions- this looks at the total absolute emissions a country has put into the atmosphere over time. It gives more of a “lifetime” view of responsibility rather than a point-in-time. However, it doesn’t control for the nation’s size or changes in the nation’s emissions over time. If we think about the fact that emissions now may be more harmful to our global climate than in the past, this method may miss the urgency of action today. Per capita emissions- could be calculated over history but almost always are done in a given year and represent a nation’s emissions divided by its population. This gives an “emissions footprint” for the average person living in the country. However, it doesn’t tell you whether those emissions are the result of demand outside the country for production nor what industries are driving emissions. Production/consumption-based emissions- an evaluation of a nation’s annual carbon emissions based on its role as a producer or consumer. This may lead nations with lower per capita footprints to come up higher in responsibility if they are consumers of high emitting goods made abroad. However, it doesn’t speak to the economic efficiency of the activities producing the emissions. The summary is there is no single approach to emissions measurement that is going to be perfect. Each one will overlook key elements. The right approach is to consider multiple ones together in order to get a sense of past and current responsibility, and how that responsibility connects into topics like economic development and global trade. My view is that there are a few other measure we haven’t really looked at that could be useful too. Those are intensity of production by industry, emissions/GDP- which nations are using their emissions most efficiently, and financed emissions- which nations are driving the financing of the most emissions. All three of these are used for companies today, but not countries. What do you think? How should we assign responsibility? #climate #emissions #economics #sustainability #netzero As always great data and visuals from Visual Capitalist and Our World in Data!
Wow, Singapore? Haven’t expected that. The rest is pretty much clear: those who pollute least suffer the most consequences.
This highlights such a crucial truth, the way we measure emissions shapes how we assign responsibility, but no single metric tells the whole story. There are indeed many ways to answer the question, “Who is most responsible for the global climate crisis?” as the metrics used to determine responsibility are diverse and continually evolving; what’s undeniable, though, is that those least responsible for the crisis often suffer its worst effects. That’s why efforts to address climate change must include a social perspective, prioritizing solutions for and starting at communities where the crisis is already a daily reality rather than a distant threat.
Per capita emissions still strike me as the clearest lens for accountability. Even the export of goods and services reflects a country’s choices: its economic strategy, its development path, and ultimately, its values. If a country pursues “cheapest at all costs” production, relying on high-polluting processes to gain a price edge, that’s not just a business decision: it’s a responsibility. I appreciate that CAPEX requirements for green industrialisation cannot be ignored, climate finance and NDC strategies need to catalyse this. Yes, importing countries have a role to play by setting higher environmental standards for what they accept. But responsibility isn’t a hot potato to be tossed back and forth. Both producer and consumer have a hand on it. Blame doesn’t solve the problem. Responsibility does.
I believe first that only absolute GHG emissions can be the measure because for example 1 kg CO2 emission gives the same result as 1 kg CO2 emission whereever it is emitted or why. Secondly you can only decide on what you can act on, so the period should be the forecast of emissions for the next 10-20-30 years so for the future( chose your duration), this is what you can decide and act today for an improvement. 3000-2000 years of deforestation is nice to be considered for historians but will not help us to consider the future. And consider the acts in terms of Mtons of CO2 to leverage all actions. And yes the map is outdated, the "industrialized" world has changed even if industry is not the only emission driver.
Haven’t seen this visual before and didn’t realise that The Brandt Line originated the divide- thanks for sharing. Wonder if China still falls South. Country attribution is problematic in a global economy- ignores upstream activity contributing to emissions and possibly downstream. I also struggle with connecting efficiency with emissions and GDP not sure it reflects reality because you need to know the cause and attribution of the emissions to associate to GDP.
I completely agree that there is no single approach to assigning responsibility for the global climate crisis. I also appreciate the additional measures you suggest, such as intensity of production by industry and emissions/GDP. These could provide valuable insights into which countries and industries are driving emissions and which are using them most efficiently. Ultimately, it's important to approach this issue with a global perspective and work together to find solutions that benefit everyone.
Thanks for sharing! The debate over how to assign responsibility for emissions is critical, especially as it shapes climate negotiations and accountability frameworks. While current, historical, and per capita emissions all offer valuable insights, they often fail to capture the complexities of global trade, economic disparities, and the role of finance.
Knowing that poverty and need are some of the considerations that contribute to air pollution the infographic is quite insightful. Even more, looking below the Brandt Line. Knowing that Chile has one of the well diversified energy portafolios I had ever seen. They have an installed of around 7.51 GW of Hydro, 9.17 GW of Solar, and 4.71 GW of wind. Quite shocking, what energy source is not being accounted?
David Carlin We already know who holds the biggest share of responsibility, I don’t think it’s a calculation problem, it’s a prioritization problem. The data exists and the patterns are clear: those who industrialized early and grew their economies through fossil fuels carry the historical burden while today’s large emitters continue to drive the crisis. What often gets overlooked is the role of power and influence. It’s not just about where emissions happen or who produces what… it’s about who shapes the global systems that allow emissions to continue unchecked. Financing, trade policies and consumption patterns all tie back to decisions made in boardrooms and government offices, often far removed from the emissions themselves. So instead of slicing responsibility into endless metrics (and these are just my two cents) we shall focus on accountability: who has the power to act and who isn’t using it? That’s where the conversation needs to be.