Concordia researcher shows which countries are most responsible for the cost of environmental damages from global warming — and the billions of dollars they could be owing.
From CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY
Montreal, September 8, 2015 — All countries have contributed to recent climate change, but some much more so than others. Those that have contributed more than their fair share have accumulated a climate debt, owed to countries that have contributed less to historical warming.
This is the implication of a new study published in Nature Climate Change, in which Concordia University researcher Damon Matthews shows how national carbon and climate debts could be used to decide who should pay for the global costs of climate mitigation and damages.
The countries that have accumulated the largest carbon debts on account of higher than average per-capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.
The U.S. alone carries 40 per cent of the cumulative world debt, while Canada carries about four per cent. On the other side, the carbon creditors — those whose share of CO2 emissions has been smaller than their share of world population — are India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil and China, with India holding 30 per cent of the total world credit.
“Thinking of climate change in terms of debts and credits for individual countries shows how much countries have over- or under-contributed to historical warming, relative to their proportion of the world’s population over time,” explains Matthews, study author and associate professor in Concordia’s Department of Geography, Planning and Environment.
“This paints a striking picture of the historical inequalities among countries with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions and consequent responsibility for climate changes.”
Calculating climate responsibility
To estimate differences in national responsibility for historical climate changes, Matthews first calculated carbon debts and credits based on fossil fuel CO2 emission and population records since 1990. It was around this date that scientific knowledge and public understanding of the dangers of human-driven climate changes began to solidify.
Since that time, the total carbon debt across all debtor nations has increased to 250 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. And it’s still going up: the increase in world carbon debt in 2013 alone was 13 billion tonnes, or about 35% of global CO2 emissions in that year.
So what is the monetary value of this debt? “According to a recent U.S. government report, the current best estimate of the social cost of present-day CO2 emissions is about $40 USD per tonne of CO2,” says Matthews. “Multiply $40 by the 13 billion tonnes of carbon debt accrued in 2013, and you get $520 billion. This cost estimate gives us an indication of how much we could be paying to help lower-emitting countries cope with the costs of climate changes, or develop their economies along carbon-free pathways.”
Looking at the total world carbon debt, the numbers are even more staggering: the 250 billion tonnes of debt accumulated since 1990, at $40 per tonne, represents $10 trillion USD. “No matter how you look at this picture, these numbers are really big — much, much larger than even the most generous financial commitments currently pledged by countries to help with the cost of climate adaptation and damages in vulnerable countries.”
CO2 emissions vs. degrees of debt
Matthews also calculated how much each country has over- or under-contributed to temperature increases as a result of a range of different greenhouse gas emissions. By this measure, the total accumulated world climate debt comes to 0.1 °C since 1990, close to a third of observed warming over this period of time. Again the U.S. is the single largest debtor, and India is the largest creditor. Some countries, however, like Brazil and Indonesia, switch from being carbon creditors, to being among the climate debtor countries, as a result of the additional greenhouse gas emissions produced by deforestation and agriculture.
“This idea of climate and carbon debts and credits highlight the large historical inequalities with respect to how much individual countries have contributed to climate warming,” says Matthews. “The historical debts and credits calculated here could be a helpful tool to inform policy discussions relating to historical responsibility and burden sharing, by providing a measure of who should pay — and how much they might be expected to pay — for the costs of mitigation and climate damages in countries with lower emissions.”
What does this mean for the upcoming Paris meetings?
As countries continue to announce their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (or INDCs) leading up to December’s climate talks in Paris, it is becoming increasingly clear that these emissions pledges will not be enough to meet the international goal of limiting global warming to 2°C (see related research by Matthews’ research group published last month in Environmental Research Letters). The idea of additionally accounting for debts and credits would of course increase the burden placed on countries with high historical emissions. “But these historical inequalities are real and substantial, and need to be fully acknowledged,” says Matthews. “My hope is that this discussion will help lead to a stronger and more meaningful global climate agreement.”
###
Related links:
Cited study in Nature Climate Change
Related article in Environmental Research Letters
Okay, bring on the Hillary carbon tax on women. Let’s see the proposal.
As the world’s farmers have greatly benefited from from US co2, the US should charge the rest of the world $50/ton. Fair is fair.
Britain gave the world the industrial revolution which has greatly increased wealth and health. We have also given it the rule of law, democracy, the English language, great inventions, great literature great art music and literature.
I reckon that puts us well into credit.
Tonyb
Tonyb, I was about to make the same point but also tie it to fossil fuel use.
We did those things – and abolished slavery too – because we had the wealth and power to do those things.
And that power was steam power. Steam made by coal.
The positive externalities of cheap energy far outweigh the negative externalities of the fossil fuels that make the cheapest energy.
So the paper in Nature Climate Change is fundamentally flawed.
But we could have guessed that from the “journal”, Nature Climate Change.
MCourtney, the UK didn’t abolish slavery because it had the wealth and power to do so. The UK abolished slavery because English society had developed an ethical outlook far superior to any other then in existence.
Plenty of other societies had sufficient wealth and power. France, Germany and Russia to name three. Not to mention 18th century China. None of them stepped up.
Scrap the Per Capita BS and go by strict production measurements and you discover that China is producing CO2 at a greater pace than Both the US and EUR combined.
2010 US 5,433,057 kt/yr
2010 China 8,286,892 kt/yr
2013 US 5,125,000 kt/yr
2013 EUR 3,750,000 kt/yr
2013 China 10,300,000 kt/yr
China is producing CO2 at a rate of Double USA. Their cost should be the same as ours.
At $40 per tonne, US debt accruing at $205,000,000,000; $205B per year
At $40 per tonne, China is accruing at $406,000,000,000; $406B per year
Per Capita is merely a measurement to allow a nation to “Pollute” more.
IF CO2 IS an environmental pollutant, then China is the greatest environmental polluter in the world
And all that energy was used to invent things like “the internet”. There will need to be a charge on all use of “innovation”. Sorry 3rd world, no leaping technology steps for you!
Yes! +10.
Pat Frank, yes and no.
Yes, we had the ethical outlook that led to abolition of slavery.
Yes it was superior, obviously.
But No. We had the ethical outlook since the Puritan Revolution of the late 16th century.
We needed the means of production to allow the will to manifest.
Pat,
Germany wasn’t a united country in 1833.
The Industrial Revolution gave Britain unprecedented wealth from c. 1760 to 1870, around which time other countries started to catch up. Suppression of the slave trade and abolishing slavery also coincided with Britain’s switch from mercantilism to free trade.
The UK was able to defeat Napoleonic France despite having half the population because of its greater wealth, thanks to industrialization. Britain bankrolled Napoleon’s continental opponents, too.
PS:
The French Republic abolished slavery in 1793-94, but Napoleon reinstituted it in 1802.
I believe that Mr Trump would at least double that $50 and demand immediate payment in Paris.
It’s just cultural Marxism trying to undermine today’s Western World culture.
The real problem is that capitalist democracy outcompete Marxism/socialism on economic results for most people involved. So we have rid ourself of capitalism.
Could not agree more
I meant the comment made by Ric Haldane, not the article 🙂
I Hope this is the right place
Gloria Swonsong
Good reading of that era in Bernard Cornwell’s Sharpe series
Pat Frank
None of Germany, France, Russia and China had anything comparable to the Royal Navy with its ability to police the seas and interdict slave shipments.
Ethics and capability.
Santa Baby sez:
So we have rid ourself of capitalism.
And replace it with what? Theft?
Gloria, you’re right about the fractured state of the Germans. Nevertheless, several of of those states were rich and powerful, but made no particular effort to halt slavery. See Europeans and slavery.
For the rest, I don’t deny that it took military power to stop the global slave trade. But many states had power and did nothing. The distinctive trait is ethics. Only the UK had that.
The U.S. alone carries 40 per cent of the cumulative world debt
===============
The EPA endangerment finding leaves the US on the hook to pay the rest of the world for these damages. The US cannot now turn around and argue that it has caused no damage to other countries.
“The US cannot now turn around and argue that it has caused no damage to other countries.”
It can and ought to turn around and say, well, something that probably cannot be printed here 🙂
Medicine, technology, liberty. Fought two world wars on your behalf.
They shoot, they score ……. an own goal.
Sharing the CO2 cost in this fashion is like a table of 5 school teachers splitting the check after lunch.
“But I didn’t eat the bread roll, and I only had a green tea, and no coffee.”
“And I shared my appetiser with you, so we have to take that into account”
Meanwhile, the waiter is thinking – “Oh, FFS . .. .”
Perfectly pur, Sir!
What an idiotic paper. I was wondering how much the world’s climate would have changed if all countries had paid up. I suggest zero.
Smoke and mirrors, part of every scam.
Zero, anyway! I’d like to know where all this “damage” is they think they’re calculating.
Agreed. The US may lead the world in psuedo-climate-damage, but Concordia U. leads the world in morons. And that’s not an easy call as hundreds of universities and think tanks are competing vigorously for that honor.
We need a tax on Gaea for her contributions to CO2.
Women are mostly made of silicon these days.
Well since the US is changing from a consumer to an fossil fuel exporter nation (often stupidly) we won’t be in debt for very long.
Lifting the ban on crude oil exports from the United States will boost U.S. economic growth, wages, employment, trade and overall welfare. For example, present discounted value of gross domestic product (GDP) in the high oil and gas resource (HOGR) case through 2039 is between $600 billion and $1.8 trillion, depending on how soon and how completely the ban is lifted.
I was mostly referring to coal exports, however if we continue on the current trend we’ll have to also export oil. Meanwhile we turn to expensive non fossil fuel methods including plug in cars.
“All countries have contributed to recent climate change, but some much more so than others.”
Anything that starts out with a false assumption as it’s first sentence is not worth our time.
Bingo!
Also the assumption that CO2 == pollution, which is everywhere in this “paper”.
— Bad News
I never hear these people talk about the CO2 they produce as humans. They certainly aren’t afraid of blaming cows.
Come on! Countries do not, repeat DO NOT, change climate. (Don’t give ’em an inch!)
Right. And a judgment on damages must show injury. Damon Matthews has failed to demonstrate any injury at all.
As others have pointed out, the only demonstrated consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 has been beneficial.
+10
Zero climate change in recent times, therefore no-one contributed and no-one pays.
“All countries have contributed to recent climate change, but some much more so than others.”
Or, as George Orwell put it: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
And what about the value of trickle down benefits? Medicines, technologies, entertainments, culture, etc, etc.
In what way is this a study or research? This is a SPECULATIVE OPINION piece. All it accomplishes is that it tells you just what kind of nonsense aggregator is the journal “Nature Climate Change.”
Dave, it also tells us what sort of stuuppid idiots Canadian academics are!!
That seems appropriate. I started reading – as a child – fairy tales. Then there was science fiction – and the Campbellesque tradition required a plausible and consistent system of physics. etc. When the arguments of what was fantasy and what was science began, psychological profiling became prevalent – enriching the genre. So when I see speculative opinion I place it squarely in line with what self identification came along to replace the sword and sorcery and space opera schism : speculative fiction : anthropogenic climate change
Climate debt is a state of mind and has no physical properties. What kind of idiot would have an accounts receivable category of climate debt?
If somebody really feels the need to pay it off then they should use Monopoly money as it has the same worth as the climate debt.
Canadian academics have no monopoly in the stupidity distribution business.
From each according to their means, to each according to their need……………..must I say more?
Karl Marx
I have principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.
Groucho Marx
“Concordia researcher shows which countries are most responsible for the cost of environmental damages from global warming…”
Just what damages to the environment from global warming have occurred?
I know of none.
No damages, no one to be made whole, no money owed.
Case closed.
Shouldn’t these researchers be first be made to prove climate change is actually happening, before setting out to determine what it may cause, or cost????
After they prove it is happening, they then are required to prove that on net, it is harmful.
So they are already two strikes down.
Gm. Global cooling climate change is already starting in Nthrn Europe. Cf. Gosselin’s blog.
Proving that climate change is happening is easy. Always has, always will. That’s a given. What they need to prove is that humans are responsible and it’s a net detriment. That they can’t do.
Everyone agrees that the climate is changing (more than 97% do) but that is because it is a dynamic system. And for this report to have any factual basis they need to prove that CO2 causes the change while the temperature remains static and CO2 increases.
Hadn’t you heard? “The “science” is “settled!” 😉
The old ‘per capita’ scam.
I`m with TinyCO2. Countries with high development necessarily have high CO2 emissions, but this development has benefited the whole planet. Once a fridge, a mobile phone or a cure to malaria has been developed, every country will eventually benefit from it. One cannot look at only one side of the ledger (the negative – assuming it is) and neglect the other side (the positive).
I agree with all comments so far. But this is what it is all about. This is what the UN is working towards. This is where Obama is headed. So better start digging deep, guys: the claims will never end, once the first one is won. Look at the mess New Zealand is in with claims for compensation from Maori. There have already been three ‘full and final settlements’, and still the demands come. (I’m a lefty, by the way.)
Step into the light son, the RIGHT will set you free !!!!
There have already been three ‘full and final settlements’, and still the demands come.
==============================
In effect the claim is “your ancestors did my ancestors harm, so you need to pay me”.
There can never be a “final” settlement, because the courts cannot settle a claim on behalf of as yet unborn children. Thus, each new generation has a new claim.
The same exact problem is now happening with CO2. People that are long dead are being held accountable for the cost of “pollution”, but they are not being asked to pay. Instead their children will be made to pay.
This is one of the great injustices of all time being created in the name of “fairness”. The sins of the fathers will be visited on the children. If a father commit murder, shall his children and his children’s children be put to death as punishment, unto the final generation?
Yes. We need to be punished. For an entirely non-existent problem we “caused”. The level of insanity increases exponentially as the Paris clownapalooza draws ever nearer.
Anthony….I don’t know how you maintain your cool or sanity with these never-ending ‘studies’ of BS. I would have succumbed long ago. I start reading and then I stop – these people have no conscience.
I agree !
They have NONE at all but I suspect that they NOW have a LARGE bank balance. (The Great Global Warming Gravy Train is simply bursting with dollars).
Regards,
WL
Actually, they do have CON SCIENCE.
Someone please tell me that this is satire by Concordia University researcher Damon Matthews.
Please tell me that this was not really published in Nature Climate Change.
Please tell me that my internet connection has been hacked and someone is playing a joke on me.
Someone please tell me that it this has really been published that Damon Matthews does not roam freely among us while unsupervised.
Wake me up Scotty, I may be having a bad dream.
Canada????? 36 million people living on the largest carbon sink on the planet! @ur momisugly eysonu I think I am in the same really bad dream! And this from a Canadian University? They must have Maurice Strong as their saint!
I was thinking the same thing about Australia. Like Canada we have more forest/ocean/biosphere than many other countries that sucks up CO2, a small population (around 23 Million) and somehow we are the “climate criminals”.
“The social cost of carbon as determined by the Interagency Working Group in their May 2013 Technical Support Document (updated in November 2013 and July 2015) is unsupported by the robust scientific literature, fraught with uncertainty, illogical, and thus completely unsuitable and inappropriate for federal rulemaking. Had the IWG included a better-reasoned and more inclusive review of the current scientific literature, the social cost of carbon estimates would have been considerably reduced with a value likely approaching zero. Such a low social cost of carbon would obviate the arguments behind the push for federal greenhouse gas regulations.”
http://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/analysis-obama-administrations-social-cost-carbon
An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon
Patrick J. Michaels, July 22, 2015
Before the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources
and –
Mr. President, CO2 Is Not Pollution, It’s the Elixir of Life
By Craig D. Idso
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mr-president-co2-not-pollution-its-elixir-life
Pure, unadulterated bovine excrement.
Carbon debts? All to bring the wealthy countries down to the level of the poor countries,by punishing the wealthy countries for “polluting” Gaia with CO2.
This “study” is beyond eye-rolling-it’s more like pound your forehead on the keyboard.
Pounding head on keyboard would most likely produce a “study” containing more factual findings.
Hopefully,the recent increase in similar “studies” and yet more BS based on computer models using falsified data means the climate change cult is circling the drain.
Your reply reminds of the thousand monkeys typing on a thousand keyboards and they would eventually write a Shakespearean type play. I have the feeling that it would take more than ten thousand “climate scientist” with ten thousand computer models and they still would not get it right!
Another view on CO2 emissions study can be found on http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/climate_changes_today.php. You can find there a nice graph about the emissions of CO2 in 1990, ordered by states. Also, there are some elements highlighted regarding the impact that the ocean and naval war has on climate change. I’m talking about oceans’ impact over climate since I’m wondering: by which proportion is man responsible for global warming? This issue has been the subject of ardurous debates for more than 20 years. And most of the claims say that modern civilization is responsible for the higher atmospheric temperatures, which were caused by man-made greenhouse gases. But I think that oceans play a much more important role than humans and the CO2 produced by us, don’t you agree?
We will find out the oceanic influence on climate over the next decade or so, as the AMO appears to be going towards a negative phase and the PDO may soon follow after this el nino is over. We will also be closer to knowing if solar grand minimums have climatic effects as history suggests.
The important thing is to observe and keep an open mind.
My understanding is that the half time of Co2 in atmosphere is around 5 years. There was something like that here recently.
So this debt is more like the one in Greece? It disappears over time with out tax payer involvement.
Ah yes, I agree with you, but the Warmistas believe that the evil human produced “carbon” has a half-life of 100 years.
GIGO
What a presumptuous and arrogant little bastard this Damon Matthews must be.
His so-called “university” would be better named the “CON” University and I dare say that their / his GRANT MONEY was plentiful too.
The ENTIRE basis of his nonsense is “carbon-dioxide” which he refers to as “carbon”.
The “report” is all complete bollocks but it is just what the “Parisites” want. Plenty of smoke and mirrors.
Such a shame that a publication known as “Nature Climate Change” CANNOT grasp the simple fact that “Nature” (alone) caused the “climate” to change on Tuesday; you know, that rather cloudy and RECENT Tuesday, about four and a half billion years ago.
At least we can eventually find out how much this little reptile gets paid for his twisted and evil vomit.
Warren, Concordia is/was an excellent institution in hard physical/natural sciences, but like many others has been contaminated by the “sustainability movement” – I strongly recommend reading National Association of Scholars concerns about this insidious indoctrination of higher education (particularly tuition paying students i.e. Middlebury College ’nuff said). This will at least help us appreciate how ubiquitous this has become and realize that this guy is in Geography Dept. (social studies), not sciences:
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/NAS-Sustainability-Digital.pdf
discussed at:
https://www.nas.org/articles/sustainabilitys_war_on_doubt
I do sadly share your feelings about it and am thrilled that I have retired from higher education.
Congrats on your retirement! I’m glad to not schedule my activities around academic calendars anymore, too.
Such a good article, I am keeping it.
Dear Bubba Cow currently in Maine,
Many thanks indeed. Such a lot to digest in that attached link (impressive stuff) : I shall read it as soon as I can.
Regards,
WL
Oxfam have been pushing this in UK (& other countries’) schools for years.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/resources/climate-challenge-11-14
I now look at a charity and see its position on climate change before I decide to donate or not.
eg The Heart Foundation is doing its annual door knock, then I found the statement on page 8 of the following pdf.
http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Food-sensitive-planning-urban-design-full-report.pdf
They did not need to buy into this climate change nonsense at all.. but they did.
It’s strange that so many organizations/companies sign on with this nonsense. I guess they fear the repercussions if they don’t, so it’s a form of extortion.
They buy in , because generally they’re run by people of a Left leaning. One lass I know, very charitable – does stints in The Samaritans’call centre, cleans up a room in an abandonned cafe to make life better for the homeless who shelter there, is an avid warmist. Add the peer-pressure element & there you have it.
“… for the cost of environmental damages from global warming… ”
What damages? And why shouldn’t they pay us instead for putting fertilizer in the air that has already improved yields by 10%?
That is truly amazing. The predictions of those who always claimed the BRIC countries would naturally take the leading role in the world as economic super powers is now coming true.
Although, Russia is counted as a debtor, I am sure the Russians will not part with any of that debt until they have something of worth in return.
It is just amazing how BRIC countries are now going to take a leading economic role after this world tax and regulation on the US. Wow. I guess economics really is a science that can make predictions.
So does anybody know any countries like Brazil, China, or India that might want to buy some nice working Coal Plant Turbines with generators, very cheap?
These parts are crucial to the process, and kind of a pain to get right.
http://corporate.vattenfall.com/globalassets/corporate/about_vattenfall/generation/c2_coal_fired_power_plant.png
They might need them in order to become the economic super powers they were destined to become according to predictions by world empire UN activists. Perhaps the US can pay its climate debt by just sending our power production parts straight to the BRICs.
Maybe DC power storage will be more awesome than AC ever was, too.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Where have I heard this before? And how did that turn out?
What a crock. It demonstrates that humans, in spite of higher levels of education, continue to lack common sense and logical thinking. The emissions of CO2 are directly related to wealth creation and a tremendous rise in the quality of life. Would we have really been better off not burning fossil fuels and living as our ancestors did? Without CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels there would have been NO Industrial Revolution, NO Scientific Revolution, NO Medical Revolution and NO Information Revolution, A huge concern of government in New York City prior to the arrival of automobiles was what they were going to do with the increasing piles of horse manure and dead horses. The acreage devoted to raising hay for all the horses in Europe and America was counted in millions of acres. Thomas Malthus prediction that the human race was destined to always live at the edge of starvation would have proven to be brilliantly correct. That we owe a carbon debt because we, the developed world, made life far better than it has ever been for everyone, including the developing countries, and now the prospect that the developing world will build on this science and technology to attain development status, is just lunacy.
The easiest people to deceive are the upper middle class. They have just enough education to be impressed by authority, but not enough to know they need to lift up the rocks and see if anything valid underlies it. They’ve also rejected religion but still have a burning need for holier-than-thou self-righteousness, and the AGW cult supplies all of this in abundance.