New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe