This week I want to explore the issue of how to reckon with accountability for climate change. According to the 2025 Climate Inequality Report the world’s richest 10% – which includes most of us – are responsible for nearly half (47%) of global carbon emissions while the poorest half account for just 10% of emissions.
These figures are, at the very least, disquieting. Yet there is considerable debate about the way in which accountability should be framed. Is it a social justice issue, that is, one requiring moral judgement about responsibility and harm? Or is it primarily an issue, which, for the good of all, requires technical and economic cooperation at a global level, regardless of blame?
To make the case for the latter it can be argued that almost everyone has benefited to some degree from the fossil fuel economy, which has raised life expectancy, reduced poverty, improved healthcare, transport, food and information systems.
It can also be argued that historical emissions were not knowlingly harmful. Until quite recently there was no consensus on the long-term consequences of burning fossil fuels. According to that argument, digging up historical responsibility may lead to unhelpful comparisons. Thus, while the USA is historically number one, China is now the biggest emitter, though its emissions may have plateaued.
Pointing fingers whichever way, it can be said, may hinder pragmatic cooperation: what matters now are present and future emissions.
Set against these arguments is the fact that the impacts of climate change are very unevenly spread, and vulnerability broadly correlates with poverty. While being the least responsible, the poorest are by far the ones most impacted by climate change, suffering disproportionately from floods, droughts, hurricanes and heatwaves. And these are getting worse.
It is also true that historically the benefits have been unequal: the fossil fuel economy has done much more for the rich than the poor.
So we return to the central question: since the wealthiest countries, businesses and individuals are by far the greatest emitters and have done the greatest damage, specifically to the poor, are they morally culpable, and should they somehow pay for it?
One attempt to address this is ‘The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD)’ established at COP28 in UAE for finance (carefully not called ‘reparations’) to address losses suffered by the poor, such as destruction of infrastructure, sea level rise and climate-driven displacement. Yet as of late 2025 only about $800m had been pledged – a tiny amount in the face of a rapidly growing need.
By 2050, according to the 2025 Global Inequality Report, as things stand, the poorest half of the world’s population is expected to bear almost three quarters of relative income losses because of climate change – a situation expressed as a ‘triple inequality’: the poorest lose the most, contribute the least and have the fewest resources to respond.
So, who should pay for climate change?
Joe Human
sustainablekeswick@gmail.com
Recent Comments