Posted on 09/23/2025 9:01:51 AM PDT by Red Badger
New research reveals that climate fairness calculations have long favored wealthy, high-polluting nations by letting them delay urgent action while shifting responsibility onto vulnerable countries. Credit: Shutterstock Scientists have uncovered a hidden bias in climate pledges that rewards big polluters and penalizes vulnerable nations.
Past calculations allowed high emitters to dodge responsibility and delay action. The new approach emphasizes historical responsibility, demanding steep cuts from wealthy countries and funding for poorer ones.
Climate Goals Under Scrutiny
Climate efforts are falling short of the Paris Agreement’s targets. To stay on track, each country is expected to contribute its ‘fair share’ of action. Yet researchers at Utrecht University uncovered a flaw in how fairness and ambition have been judged so far: “previous studies assessing countries climate ambition share a feature that rewards high emitters at the expense of the most vulnerable ones.” This discovery could have major consequences for global climate strategies. The study, led by Yann Robiou du Pont, appeared on September 3 in Nature Communications.
The team explains that past assessments were distorted because they relied on constantly moving baselines of rising emissions. Their new approach avoids postponing emission cuts and instead measures the immediate ambition gap that must be closed through stronger policies and financial support. With existing pledges still falling short, the findings highlight how courts are increasingly stepping in to ensure governments meet both climate and human rights duties. According to the study, the largest emitters, including the G7 nations, Russia, and China, bear far greater responsibility due to their historic contributions and greater financial resources.
Approach Based on Historical Responsibility Needed
Fair-share allocations divide the global carbon budget among nations according to principles such as historical responsibility, capacity, and development needs, providing each country with a proportional share of allowable emissions. Within the Paris Agreement framework, these allocations define what nations should commit to in order to keep global warming to 1.5°C and well below 2°C.
Warming Assessment of Nationally Determined Contributions
The figure shows how national climate pledges (NDCs) compare with global pathways that would limit warming to between 1.5°C and 4°C. Under the approach as proposed in the research, global emissions are divided up in a way that reflects fairness and equity. The colors show whether a country’s pledge is strong enough to match a 1.5°C pathway or instead lines up with weaker pathways (2°C, 3°C, or 4°C). Credit: Yann Robiou du Pont, et al., Nature Communications.
===================================================================
By calculating each ambition and fairness assessment from the present situation, we increasingly let major polluting countries off the hook. This pushes a heavier burden onto countries that have done the least to cause the crisis, or, more realistically, brings the world towards catastrophic levels of global warming. Therefore, the authors propose calculating fair-share emissions allocations immediately based on each country’s historical contributions to climate change and their capacity to act.
Accounting for immediate responsibilities sets a new baseline. It would cause some countries’ emission paths to suddenly and drastically change instead of following a smooth decline. This approach would demand steep, immediate cuts mostly from wealthier, high-emitting countries. Since the cuts needed from these countries are too large to achieve locally, it requires substantial financial support for additional mitigation in poorer countries.
Importantly, removing the systemic reward for inaction affects the ranking of countries’ gap between their current pledges and fair emissions allocations, even within the group of high-income countries. Then, the USA, Australia, Canada, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia have the greatest gap, requiring the most additional effort and finance. Much of the equity discussions is about developed versus developing countries, but this paper is particularly relevant for developed countries being rewarded for inaction compared to other and more ambitious developed countries.
Role in Climate Litigation
Fair-share studies like this one are increasingly used in climate litigation, such as the KlimaSeniorinnen case before the European Court of Human Rights. The court recognized that insufficient national climate action constitutes a breach of human rights and that countries must justify how their climate pledges are a fair and ambitious contribution to the global objectives.
Courts rely on these assessments to evaluate whether national emissions targets are sufficient and equitable. Biases in the assessments, therefore, have real-world impact: they can shape legal rulings, influence policy commitments, and inform public opinions. Courts are thus emerging as a key force in ensuring accountability and indirectly promoting cooperation when political and diplomatic negotiations fall short.
In a landmark advisory opinion issued on July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice affirmed that countries have a legal obligation under international law to prevent significant harm to the climate system, emphasizing the duty to act collectively and urgently. “This strengthens and underscores the growing role of courts in enforcing climate justice,” says Robiou du Pont.
Paying the Debt
Solving the climate crisis is a moral imperative long identified by climate justice activists and scholars. Practically, we are observing that the lack of fair efforts by countries with the greatest capacity and responsibility to act and provide finance results in insufficient action globally. A fairer allocation of effort is likely to result in more ambitious outcomes globally. This study explains how immediate climate efforts and finance are key to align with international agreements to limit global warming.
Reference:
“Effect of discontinuous fair-share emissions allocations immediately based on equity”
by Yann Robiou du Pont, Mark Dekker, Detlef van Vuuren and Michiel Schaeffer, 3 September 2025, Nature Communications.
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-62947-9
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Duh...
Abundant, affordable energy has made the modern world possible and the very poorest among us live better than 99.9999% of all humans who ever lived on earth.
Liberal kooks the world over say “Stop that. You need to go back to the wonderful Dark Ages.”
When someone says “fair share” grab your wallet and run!
Yes. Any time a so-called scientific agency needs to cherry-pick and “correct” their empirical data and change their mathematical models to produce the results they want to show someone else, the books are being cooked. The question we should be asking is not, “Has climate math been rigged this whole time?” but “Cui bono?”
More climate math:
1. How have the climate “issues” changed after enacting untold policies/laws and stealing trillions of dollars from taxpayers?
2. How about an audit of those trillions of dollars stolen from taxpayers?
You think poor countries have it bad now? Just wait until the next glaciation...we better just hope that we actually have the ability to warm the planet.
Ya think?
Shocking /sarc
Anyone STILL asking that question is hopelessly insanely stupid.
Commie Math.
Welcome to the party, pal.
International climate science is (1) a grifter money grab by third world countries and (2) for China, Europe, and Russia, it is a way to slow down the US economy so it doesn’t continue to outpace the socialist/fascist economies.
Over 10 or 20 years, small reductions in the US economic growth rate translate into a very large reduction in economic and military power relative to WEF or totalitarian type economies.
You are directly over the target!!!!!!!!!!!
With regularity the world goes a little bit insane and people start believing in the “End of the World.” Global Warming is simply the latest “Millenial Cult.” It really got rolling after the previous cult (Y2K) failed to pan-out. It may well be that A-I is the next world-is-ending cult.
I could sum this “study” up in a single sentence: “You rich countries owe us more than you think you do.” We owe them nothing.
Another method and scheme to take from the “rich” and give to the “poor”. The world has been trying it by different methods for at least sixty years, and those methods have been proven wrong. Countries raise themselves out of poverty by open capital appreciation, fee enterprise economic development, not by welfare-like handouts. China did not rise on handouts and neither will India or Africa.
bfl
Money, it’s a crime
Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.