· 10 min read
The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change which calls to hold the increase in the global average temperature to “well below 2°C” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” To meet these goals, countries must submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), outlining their plans to reduce national emissions and adapt to the challenges posed by climate change. These NDCs are flexible to accommodate the varying circumstances of each country.
This flexibility is a key feature of the Paris Agreement, recognizing that countries’ capacities and historical responsibilities influence the level of contribution they are expected to make. “While countries are formally equal in the United Nations (UN) climate negotiations, their contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, development needs, and vulnerability to climate change vary greatly.”Wealthier nations, due to their larger historical contributions to global emissions, are expected to lead mitigation efforts. In contrast, developing nations, often with fewer resources, are granted greater flexibility and support in meeting their climate targets.. This approach embodies the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capacities (CBDR-RC), ensuring that countries’ differing circumstances are taken into account in the global response to climate change. This principle emphasizes equitable action, recognizing that those who contribute the least to climate change should not bear the heaviest burdens.
While emissions differ significantly between countries, they also vary greatly within countries, driven by both wealth inequality and regional disparities. Wealthier populations contribute significantly more to greenhouse gas emissions than poorer populations. In 2019, the wealthiest 10% of the population was accountable for 48% of global emissions, while the poorest 50% were responsible for only 12% of emissions. The top 1% alone is responsible for 17% of total emissions This is further compounded by regional disparities: urban areas with higher concentrations of industrial activity and energy demands account for the majority of emissions, whereas rural areas with less industrialization have significantly lower emission levels. Cities alone are responsible for over 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Given these disparities, encouraging countries to apply the principles of CBDR at the national level offers a pragmatic pathway to addressing differences in both accountability for emissions and respective capabilities. Wealthier populations and urban regions, which contribute disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions, bear greater responsibility for climate mitigation. At the same time, they possess more financial, technological, and institutional resources to lead these efforts. Conversely, poorer and rural communities, despite their lower emissions contributions, are often the most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. Yet these communities often lack the resources to effectively adapt or mitigate these impacts.
I. Including redistributive policies in NDCs
The rich pollute more
Responsibility for climate impacts increases with rising wealth levels, but it becomes strikingly disproportionate upon reaching the richest 10%. As noted above, the wealthiest decile contributes disproportionately to global CO2 emissions in comparison with the rest of the population. This is largely driven by luxury consumption, including private jets and large homes. At the extreme end of this spectrum, the ultra-rich consume the global "carbon budget" (the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowable to stay within 1.5°C of warming) at rates that severely undermine equitable access to resources. Research highlights that if the global population emitted carbon at the same rate as the luxury transportation of just 50 of the world’s richest billionaires, the planet’s remaining carbon budget would be exhausted in two days. On average, these billionaires took 184 flights in 2023, each emitting approximately 2,074 tonnes of CO2 annually. This level of emissions equates to what the average person produces over 300 years or 2,000 years for someone in the poorest 50%.
Emily Ghosh, a staff scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute explains that as the rich race through the remaining "carbon budget" they "aren't making the space for the bottom 50% of the population to grow their emissions to the point where they are actually getting their needs met". Each luxury emission by the rich is at the expense of a basic need emission of the poor by exhausting the remaining carbon budget.
The poor suffer more
Despite being the least responsible for climate change, economically vulnerable populations are disproportionately impacted by its effects. Research suggests that “both climate policy and climate impacts affect more the lower end of income distribution”.
Firstly, adverse climate impacts, such as disruptions in food production, rising consumption prices, declines in rural incomes and growing health risks affect the poor more severely than other socio-economic groups. These impacts are driven by a range of factors, including changes in agricultural productivity, which have been exacerbated by both gradual climate shifts and more frequent, intense natural disasters. Other factors, such as rising temperatures, water shortages, and shifting disease patterns, also contribute to the challenges faced by vulnerable populations. For example, the probability of crop yield failures is projected to be as much as 4.5 times higher by 2030 and up to 25 times higher by 2050 across global breadbaskets. These disruptions go beyond food production and extend to other critical areas. Economic downturns triggered by decimated crops can hinder access to education, while work-related hazards, such as heat stress, are expected to reduce total working hours worldwide by 2.2% and global GDP by $2.4 billion in 2030. Additionally, the climate crisis threatens universal health coverage by worsening existing health issues and creating new barriers, especially for vulnerable, low-income populations. A 2-3°C rise could result in 150 million more malaria cases and a 5% increase in risk, disproportionately affecting the poor. Water shortages will worsen diarrhoea, leading to 48,000 additional child deaths by 2030, mainly impacting areas with poor healthcare access.
Secondly, climate change policies often worsen the situation for the poor. These policies are “associated with a significant and persistent increase in income inequality”. This is largely attributed to the regressive nature of carbon taxes, as lower-income households allocate a greater proportion of their income to energy expenditures, making them more vulnerable to the financial impacts of such measures. Moreover, the social repercussions and acceptability of climate policies can further entrench inequality.
Finally, research found that these vulnerable groups are often “discriminated against, undermined, and overlooked” in societal programs and interventions designed for climate change adaptation and disaster mitigation. These mechanisms are often found to be ineffective, causing poorer communities to be disproportionately more vulnerable to climate change impacts.
Aligning with equity principles
CBDR, as currently applied, often fails to adequately target the wealthiest populations. It differentiates responsibilities between countries based on national income levels and historical emissions, but neglects economic and regional disparities within countries. As a result, the richest individuals in both developed and emerging economies frequently escape accountability for their outsized contributions to climate change.
Global wealth distribution data highlights the growing number of billionaires in emerging economies. Of the 493 new billionaires in recent years, 210 are from China and Hong Kong, with China (698 billionaires) and India (140 billionaires) surpassing Europe (136 billionaires) in total counts. This rapid accumulation of wealth in emerging economies highlights the inadequacy of solely targeting richer countries under CBDR without addressing wealthy individuals across all nations.
Climate policies often produce regressive outcomes, as seen above, allowing the richest decile to pay proportionately less than their emission levels would require, while burdening poorer populations who are less responsible. This reflects a failure to uphold the principle of CBDR.
Redistributive measures for climate justice
Effective climate action requires addressing the wealthiest individuals’ disproportionate impact on emissions. The Paris Agreement should reinforce CBDR within countries by promoting the incorporation of redistributive policies in NDCs.
Policies to incorporate into NDCs could include:
-
Tax on luxury transportation: A tax on luxury transportation goods, such as high-end cars or private jets. The tax would operate in relation to distance traveled. Revenue from this tax would be directed toward climate change mitigation projects
-
Green tax on wealth: A progressive wealth tax on the rich and corporations to fund climate solutions, including renewable energy projects and support for vulnerable communities
-
Income-based emission reduction goals: Establish an emission reduction goal scheme based on individual or corporate income levels rather than national averages to distribute obligations more equitably
-
Progressive carbon taxes: Add a plan to review national carbon taxes to mitigate their regressive effects
-
Wealth-based corporate obligations: Mandate higher climate targets for wealthier companies or industries that contribute significantly to emissions, aligning their resources with climate responsibilities
Targeting luxury emissions and linking climate responsibility to wealth helps hold the wealthy accountable while generating funds for equitable climate solutions. Embedding these policies in NDCs ensures fairness and supports a just transition for vulnerable populations, aligning with CBDR principles.
II. Including subnational entities in NDCs
Mirroring the logic from Part I, wealthier cities and regions within countries tend to contribute more to emissions and, as a result, bear a greater responsibility for mitigating climate change compared to poorer regions.
Cities account for over 70% of global emissions and 80% of GDP. In China, the 18 central cities contribute 22.2% of national emissions, while in the U.S., the top 10 emitting states account for half. Nadia Shah Naidoo and colleagues argue that NDCs lack subnational involvement, limiting their effectiveness. They propose multilevel partnerships, encouraging collaboration between national and subnational governments to boost ambition and improve implementation.
Building on this framework, this proposal adapts their approach under the principles of CBDR. Not only should there be strengthened collaboration between different levels of governance, but subnational entities should also be allocated responsibilities based on their emissions and financial resources. This would involve setting higher targets for wealthier regions, ensuring that their contribution to emissions reduction is proportional to their economic capacity and environmental impact.
Policies to incorporate into NDCs could include:
-
Set higher targets for wealthier regions: Establish higher emissions reduction targets for wealthier regions, reflecting their greater responsibility in terms of average national emissions and their higher capacity to mitigate and adapt to climate change
-
Engage with poorer regions and vulnerable communities: Prioritize effective communication with marginalized, indigenous, and poorer communities to address their needs and vulnerabilities in climate policy. Involving indigenous groups in NDC development helps integrate traditional knowledge and ensures policies are culturally relevant and adaptive.Promote regional collaboration: Foster cooperation between regions, particularly wealthier and poorer areas, to facilitate climate finance and resource transfers. This collaboration should focus on sharing technology, knowledge, and financial support to help less developed regions mitigate and adapt to climate change
Conclusion
The Paris Agreement’s commitment to equity, as reflected in the principle of CBDR, provides a crucial framework for addressing both international and domestic disparities in emissions and climate vulnerability. While the Agreement effectively recognizes differences between countries, extending the CBDR principle within countries would further enhance the justice effectiveness of climate action and enable more just and equitable outcomes.
Introducing redistributive measures into NDCs could ensure that the wealthiest populations, who contribute disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions, take greater responsibility for mitigation efforts. This could include progressive carbon taxes, luxury goods levies, and targeted emissions reductions for high-impact industries. Such measures would also generate resources to support poorer and more vulnerable communities, mitigating the regressive effects of climate policies and promoting an equitable and just transition.
Incorporating subnational entities into NDCs would bridge the urban-rural divide, empowering local actors and fostering collaboration. This approach ensures climate policies meet diverse community needs, promotes resource sharing between rich and poor regions, and supports an inclusive, just transition to a low-carbon future, in line with the Paris Agreement.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
