Historical Responsibility for the Climate Crisis: The Roots of the Unfair Imbalance
Photo: Anne Nygård | Unsplash

Historical Responsibility for the Climate Crisis: The Roots of the Unfair Imbalance

A handful of industrialised countries emit great amounts of GHG emissions, and the consequences disproportionately affect countries in the Global South.

For instance, in April 2024, the Philippines faced an extreme heatwave, with temperatures reaching 42°C, causing drought and heat-related deaths. Similar extreme events occurred in many other countries. Yet the countries responsible for a large part of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions driving such events are far away from where the events happened.

Having profited off emitting for decades, industrialised countries must now bear a greater responsibility for addressing the climate crisis. Not only that – Global North countries are often less affected by the climate crisis’ consequences and they have more financial and technical resources and, therefore, have higher capacity to adapt.

Which countries have a large historical responsibility?

It’s no surprise that the United States, accounting for 20% of all historical emissions, is highest. The US is a huge economy that continues to expand its fossil fuel industry. More recently, China has taken the undesirable lead as the world’s largest emitter. Collectively, the European Union follows, with 17% of total emissions, with Germany as the largest emitter from the region. Russia ranks next, accounting for around 7%.

https://www.carbonmap.org/#Historical

Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter when a tonne of CO2 is emitted, because once emitted, CO2 stays in the atmosphere.

The different shares of responsibilities extend beyond borders and exist within societies. The wealthiest individuals usually are the greatest emitters, such as through their use of private jet flights, yachts, and investments in polluting industries. Put into numbers, the richest 1% of the population produces 16% of global emissions in a single year, equivalent to the emissions of the 5 billion people in the poorest two-thirds (per Oxfam).

The material “Climate Equality: A planet for the 99% – Khalfan, Ashfaq, Nilsson Lewis, Astrid, Aguilar, Carlos Lawson, Max, Jayoussi, Safa, Persson, Jacqueline, Dabi, Nafkote, Acharya, Suni – Oxfam – 20/11/2023 – Figure ES.2 on page xi” is reproduced with the permission of Oxfam, Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford OX4 2JY, UK www.oxfam.org.uk. Oxfam does not necessarily endorse any text or activities that accompany the materials.

Carbon majors: How companies fuel the climate crisis

Next to rich individuals, large (fossil fuel) companies account for a large share of historical emissions. Coal and other fossil fuels largely drove industrialisation, and globally, 78 of these “carbon majors” caused over 70% of global CO2 emissions.

A revealing perspective by Climate Analytics shows the carbon majors’ profits with the damages their emissions cause. From 1985 to 2018, 25 carbon majors made USD 30 trillion in profits, while the social costs tied to their emissions amounted to USD 20 trillion. So, even if these companies were to fully compensate for the damage that they caused, they’d still rake in massive profits.

Simply put, while great numbers of people in developing (and developed) countries are suffering from floods and heatwaves, a very few companies are making huge financial gains.

How to calculate emissions… it’s complicated

Calculating GHG emissions isn’t as straightforward as it may seem. Scientists have faced a fundamental question:

Should emissions be counted based on what a country produces or on the emissions caused within a country when imported goods and services are consumed?

Currently, countries use the production-based accounting method to report their emissions and targets (Nationally Determined Contributions – NDCs) to the UNFCCC. The IPCC also follows this approach, measuring emissions generated within a country’s territory.

But some studies have looked into how emissions and the responsibility to act shift when using a consumption-based approach. The results show a clear regional divide: Western Europe, the Americas, and many African countries are net importers of emissions, while Eastern Europe and Asia are net exporters. Countries such as China, Kazakhstan, and South Africa are high producers, but they export a large part of the goods produced to countries and regions such as the US, UK, France, and Germany.

So, is it fair to attribute the emissions from producing these goods to countries like China when they primarily sustain consumption and lifestyle choices made in other nations?

For the CCPI, we base our emissions calculations on production, as this approach holds a country accountable for the emissions it generates and policymakers have the power to reduce emissions through domestic policies. No comprehensive data on national emissions solely on a consumption basis are available yet. We underscore the major fossil fuel producers countries with a fire symbol in our ranking, making it clear which nations must urgently phase out fossil fuel production. See the section on Emissions Accounting and Trade (PDF) in our methodology brochure for further explanation.

Is the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism a fairer way to charge for polluting?

European policymakers are aware of the issues with counting emissions on a production basis.

Carbon leakage is a big issue. It occurs when industries relocate to countries with weaker environmental regulations yet without reducing their overall emissions. To address this, the EU introduced the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in 2023. This policy places a fee on imported goods based on the emissions produced during their manufacturing. In this way, consumers pay more for carbon-intensive goods and companies are incentivised to decarbonise their industries.

Governments of least developed countries, however, have criticised the CBAM for imposing a heavy burden on them, as they lack the administrative capacity to comply with it.

The persistent traces of colonial rule on emissions counting

Colonial rule is another aspect of the debate on historical responsibility and climate justice. Emissions are usually calculated using modern-day national borders, which ignores the fact that, for centuries, many countries were under the rule of colonial powers such as the UK, Netherlands, and France.

In a post-colonial analysis of historical emissions, Carbon Brief assigns all emissions during periods of colonial rule to the colonising nations. While the history is complex, the results present a telling picture: the share of emissions by Russia (Soviet rule), the UK, France, and the Netherlands grows substantially, while countries such as Indonesia and India see their shares shrink. The UK’s share, in particular, doubles under this approach.

So, when considering emissions tied with colonialism, former colonial powers bear even greater responsibility than what current borders suggest.

Historical responsibility in international climate negotiations

Historical responsibility is ever-present in UNFCCC negotiations. While countries are formally equal in these talks, they differ greatly in their contributions to emissions, development needs, and vulnerabilities to climate crisis impacts. Over time, the parties have found different answers to the question of which parties should cut emissions.

At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, countries recognised that while they all share a responsibility to act on climate change, their responsibilities differ because of their unequal contributions to the issue and their different economic capacities. This understanding formed the basis of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Building on this principle, the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 categorised countries based on their economic capabilities. Industrialised countries (Annex I) committed to emissions reduction targets. Annex II countries comprised the OECD members of Annex I, excluding the economies in transition. Both groups are required to provide climate finance to Non-Annex I countries, which are mostly developing and least developed countries. These countries were not required to reduce emissions but received climate finance, as they the climate crisis affects them disproportionately and they have fewer (financial) resources.

The classification shifted in 2015 with the Paris Agreement, which distinguished between developed and developing countries. While the Paris Agreement still upheld the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, all countries were now legally required to submit their mitigation targets – NDCs. Developing countries could indicate that part of their targets was conditional on receiving climate finance from developed nations and they had more flexibility in how they reported their NDCs.[1]

Historical responsibility becomes especially critical when addressing loss and damage, which refers to climate crisis impacts, such as loss of life, destruction of homes, and damage to ecosystems and infrastructure. Developed countries have historically avoided full responsibility for the climate crisis, largely out of fear of compensation claims. But at COP27 two years ago, the Parties agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund. As COP29 in Baku approaches, the operationalisation of this fund will be a key focus. This situation highlights the importance of historical responsibility, as it directly influences who provides and receives support through climate finance, capacity building, and post-disaster assistance.

Today’s climate injustices

Historical responsibility is closely interlinked with issues of inequality, both between and within countries. While the climate crisis is a problem for all of us, a few countries mostly in the Global North have generated a great deal of the emissions, while countries in the Global South are bearing the consequences. The resulting injustices must be addressed now, through measures such as fair contributions to the Loss and Damage Fund, drastic reductions in emissions, and the end of the fossil fuel era.

https://ccpi.org/download/climate-change-performance-index-2024-background-and-methodology/

Merle Clara Riebandt

[1]Tian, W. and Xiang, G. (2018). Advances in Climate Change Research 9 (2018) 253e263. Reflection and operationalization of the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities principle in the transparency framework under the international climate change regime.