Climate Change Most Affects Nations That Didn't Produce It

Developed nations that drive climate change incur relatively few of the costs whereas countries that produce few greenhouse gas emissions will be hard-hit, like nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke.

Getty Images/iStockphoto Thinkstock Images (MARS)

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“Less than 4 percent of countries are responsible for over half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Glenn Althor, of the University of Queensland.

“This means that the majority of countries are unfairly bearing the burden of a problem that they did not create. Clearly, this isn’t fair by any definition. It’s much like a non-smoker being trapped in a room and getting cancer from second hand smoke while a heavy smoker continues to puff away in good health.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Althor and colleagues at the University of Queensland and the Wildlife Conservation Society have just published a study analyzing the contributions to climate change by the world’s nations versus the effect that climate change will have on those countries.  

“We found that developed nations, such as Australia, the United States, Canada and Russia, are essentially climate free riders, driving the problem of climate change while incurring relatively few of the costs, such as devastating flood, increased extreme weather and rising sea levels.”

Meanwhile, the most vulnerable countries, many of which are in Africa or are small island states, produce few greenhouse gas emissions. The study is in the Nature publication Scientific Reports. [Glenn Althor, James E. M. Watson and Richard A. Fuller, Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change]

“While it’s important that this issue is defined by scientists, it needs to be acted on by global leaders. The Paris Climate Agreement, finalized in December last year, was widely seen as a positive step forward in addressing climate change. However, there must be an urgent and meaningful mobilization of the policies outlined in the Paris Agreement if we’re to help the most vulnerable countries adapt to climate change while achieving global emissions reductions.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

[Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.]

Editor's note: a previous version of this story mistakenly identified the speaker as co-author James Watson.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe