Rich nations owe developing nations $170 trillion in climate compensation, new study estimates
By Paul Homewood
Industrialised nations of the Global North, such as the US and Germany, are responsible for 90 percent of excessive levels of carbon dioxide emissions, and could be liable to pay a total of USD 170 trillion in compensation to low-emitters like India to ensure climate change targets are met by 2050, according to a new study.
India is owed an annual compensation of USD 1,446 per capita until 2050 and a yearly compensation equivalent to 66 percent of its GDP in 2018, the study published in Nature Sustainability on Monday says.
The researchers from University of Leeds, the UK, analysed 168 countries and quantified historical responsibility for climate breakdown, based on excess carbon dioxide emissions beyond equality-based fair shares of global carbon budgets.
The top five over-emitting countries, including the US, Germany, Russia, the UK and Japan, would be liable to pay USD 131 trillion (more than two-thirds of total compensation.
Full story
https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/atmospheric-appropriation/#GBR
According to the study, the UK’s share would amount to $3488 a year for every man, woman and child.
Far from the wicked West having to pay the rest of the world, they should be paying us. Thanks to fossil fuels and the industrial revolution, India and the all of the rest of the developing world are unbelievably better off then they would be otherwise:
But the most interesting chart is this one:
https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth
It shows how closely interlinked the use of fossil fuels and economic growth are. Now we want to deny the poorer countries the chance to catch up.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
So developing countries want industrialised countries to pay them money for improving the climate? Surely, the money should be going the other way.
I hope they don’t get arm-ache holding their hands out and waiting for funds to drop in.
On the principle that ‘the polluter pays’, lets start with reparations from China & India … good luck with that.
On the principle that ‘the polluter pays’, lets start with …. Greenpeace.
It still propels all its boats with fossil fuels.
The third world should also pay the west money related to their increased food crop output due to increased CO2.
UN Agenda 2035?
I can honestly say that in my 68 years on this planet, living in the UK East Midlands and NE England and three years in Southern Spain, I have not noticed any change in the climate whatsoever.
Apparently atmospheric CO2 has increased by 50% during my lifetime, with predictions of “climate refugees” heading north to escape failed crops and severe drought. Supply and demand of NE England housing should mean property prices are much higher than they are in London, Kent and Cornwall.
I can assure you that this is not the case!
That’s because 68 years is far too long to detect climate change. There’s no novelty in having “seen it all before”, so what you need is an internal memory bank that wipes itself clean every night. That way you wake up each morning to a new hottest, coldest, windiest, driest etc day “since your records began”.
The little greenhouse effect that there is from CO2 tails off exponentially at a very low level, I think it is about 200ppm, and thereafter any increase has negligible effect. We are up to something like 420ppm now, and another doubling would similarly have no measurable additional effect, other than a very welcome surge in plant growth.
Incidentally, the picture atop the article shouts their ignorance because CO2 is invisible of course and to pretend it is pollution they have to arrange it as smoke. Just like they always illustrate cooling towers belching, er, water vapour silhouetted agains the sky.
Where is this ‘climate breakdown’ of which they speak? Haven’t noticed myself.
I see it’s now being called “climate collapse” and supposedly it’s imminent – if we don’t mend our ways.
However I’ve not seen any description of what is actually supposed to happen and, disgracefully, none of the media reporters have challenged the eco loons to explain what they mean by climate collapse.
Tell me the result you want to pay for and I can make any study give any result you want.
Would be more useful if they studied what is *excess” and what actual provable effect it has had on anyone before they leapt into ridiculous action
Why not $170 quadrillion?
After generations, developing nations have . . . failed to develop. Why should we pay them for their failure? The responsibility is THEIRS!
So China, the biggest emitter in the world, will receive money from UK, because we started “polluting” a long time ago! The report has analysed a great deal of information, and there is a detailed explanation of the concepts they are using. However it is really just a wish list, it is not going to happen, but the little countries will by all over the COP28 meeting demanding money.
On the subject of COP’s, after 27 meetings……
“Are CO2 levels the highest they’ve ever been?
It is now 50 percent higher than the preindustrial average, before humans began the widespread burning of oil, gas and coal in the late 19th century. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than at any time in at least 4 million years, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials said.3 Jun 2022”
Classic socialist wealth redistribution under the guise of Climate Change.
The plan to transfer of wealth from western nations, raised at COP 27, is now gathering pace. All part of the UN plan to destroy capitalism as outlined bu UN Rep Christina Figgures
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
Christiana Figueres”
Ok now while we are on it….The five worst polluting rivers are in third world countries…. cough up guys for the clean up job…also you can cough for the people you are exporting to Western countries as welfare tourists.
I am sick to the back teeth of studies formed on the back of no science whatsoever (except that is for political science) paid for by tax payer subsidised grants produced by lefties doing the business of lefties which is destroying Western Civilization. A pox on all of them in the Leeds institute for the mentally challenged
How long do you think before the weasels in the BBC and the Grauniad pick up on this and run with asking for comments from the usual suspects they have on the payroll who sit to the left of Pol Pot?
Mentioned in my weekly e-mail “Down to Earth” today from the Guardian! Have not seen it in the actual paper.
They both do what Bill Gates tell them to given his funding via his laundering Foundation.
Check out some of the background, it comes from Schellenhuber and Rockstrom former and current directors of the Potsdam Institute, pushing the Planetary Boundaries theme they have been pushing since about 2009.
https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a
“Since the Industrial Revolution, a new era has arisen, the Anthropocene4, in which human actions have become the main driver of global environmental change. This could see human activities push the Earth system outside the stable environmental state of the Holocene, with consequences that are detrimental or even catastrophic for large parts of the world.”
https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/about/
Check out the bios of the authors, some looking as if they have just left school, an example of the genre is Dr. Jason Hickel “an economic anthropologist, author, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He is Professor at the Institute for Environmental Science and Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Visiting Senior Fellow at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics, and Chair Professor of Global Justice and the Environment at the University of Oslo. He is Associate Editor of the journal World Development, and serves on the Climate and Macroeconomics Roundtable of the US National Academy of Sciences, the Statistical Advisory Panel for the UN Human Development Report, the advisory board of the Green New Deal for Europe, the Harvard-Lancet Commission on Reparations and Redistributive Justice, and the Lancet Commission on Sustainable Health.”
There is also Kate Raworth https://www.kateraworth.com/about/
“Her internationally best-selling book Doughnut Economics: seven ways to think like a 21st century economist has been translated into over 20 languages and has been widely influential with diverse audiences, from the UN General Assembly to Pope Francis to Extinction Rebellion.
Kate is a Senior Associate at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, where she teaches on the Masters in Environmental Change and Management. She is also Professor of Practice at Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.
She holds a first class BA in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, and an MSc in Economics for Development, both from Oxford University. She has been awarded honorary doctorates by the University of York, KU Leuven, and Business School Lausanne. She is a member of the Club of Rome and currently serves on the World Health Organisation Council on the Economics of Health for All.”
We’re doomed…
Dr Jason Hickel and Kate Raworth – so what’s their plan? To be made fools and idiots of when their ‘knowledge’ is made out to be rubbish as is frequently made clear from many websites? Difficult to believe this so what is happening? If it’s the money I’m sure Kate, not a science bod, could do as well publishing a book demolishing the climate catastrophe scenario – why doesn’t she? ‘cos her received ‘evidence’ is overwhelming. With her impressive background she would not like to be gainsaid so she treads very carefully and doesn’t expect to be so.
I can’t even begin to comprehend the idiocy in this, so I’m even going to read it. my blood pressure is high allready.
So much is made of the current level of CO2 today especially as it is NEVER put into context. Indeed all we know (publicly) is what was produced by that fraud Michael Mann and also shown on stage by that world famous physicist Al Gore, both of whom I would not trust as far as I could throw them!
Do you all not find it “amusing” that the single most important empirical dataset needed to underpin the Anthropogenic theory does not even exist? Well you only need look at the electromagnetic spectra of CO2 and water vapour to understand why, and also a bit of Geological History to verify. You see there exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind which supports the claim the CO2 returned to the Carbon Cycle by the actions of man can in any measurable way be shown to be responsible for all or even part of the current welcome warming, the fourth such warming in recent human history.
CO2 is the gas of life and the source of the oxygen we breath. CO2 is plant food and without CO2 the planet will be a brown husk. In the Cambrian the atmospheric level was 7000ppm. Only one other time during Earth history has the concentration been so low ( Across the Carboniferous and Permian). When the angiosperms evolved ( the plants we eat) the level was 2500-2800ppm. Because of this plants are starving today. Commercial greenhouse growers pump CO2 into greenhouses because plants naturally grow bigger, faster using less water when there is more CO2. (When did we here the BBC telling that fact)? When the primates evolved (us) it was 1500ppm.
There IS actually a problem with CO2 but not the one pushed by the marxists, by the frauds and by their useful idiot religious freaks. It is that since the Late Jurassic the atmospheric level has been in almost linear decline. Why is that? The most likely theory is the evolution of marine organisms in the Late Jurassic which took CO2 and CaCO3 from sea water to form hard shells. The critical issue is that a large portion of the resultant calcium carbonate was not recycled back into the Carbon Cycle but was locked away in rocks. That those organisms have been supremely good at this is made testament by the incredible volumes of carbonate rocks in the world today which contain several orders of magnitude more CO2 than the atmosphere and sea combined.
During the first part of the current Ice Age the atmospheric level of CO2 fell to around 180ppm or put another way 30ppm above the death of plants. To say life on Earth dodged a bullet so very recently is an understatement. So you may ask, what is an ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere? Well a good place to start is an average over Geological Time which is 2500ppm, coincidently the same as it was when the plants we eat evolved. There is NO geological evidence at all for a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and surface temperature. NONE! That is pretty much inline with physics.., nice to see when they agree. As for Al Gore and his cabaret showing the twin curves of temp and CO2 extracted from ice cores. Either he lied or he was lied to. You remember the saw tooth pattern? Temperature increase PREDATES CO2 rise by 800 years and is due to degassing of the Oceans, not the other way around as the now multimillionaire keeps claiming.
In recent human history there have now been 4 warmings: the Minoan, the Roman, The Medieval and now. Both the Roman and Medieval were warmer in respect of the English part of the UK as compared to now. How do we know? Well during the Roman warm figs were grown around Colchester and during the Medieval period, grapes were grown in Yorkshire, neither of which are possible today and yet we are told….lalalalala
Which ever way you look at this fraud and by god it is a biggy there are so many ways the charlatans could have redeemed themselves but didn’t because like all other religious, facts are not only not welcome, they are downright dangerous and anyway a lot of very bad actors saw cash, lots of it.
So back to the hysterical pap about “oh CO2 levels have never been this high for 4 million years”. 1. I challenge that claim and 2, Thank your lucky stars that it is!
Excellent post but no one, even the idiots, is saying there should be no CO2.
How do account that ‘reputable’ scientists and those like Kate Raworth and Dr Jason Hickel don’t agree with you?
They are entitled to their opinions.
However it is not what I or they say, it is what the data says and that is statistically significant empirical data produced by falsifiable methodologies.
It is not possible to find geological arguments for the claims against CO2 they do not exist. It is also not possible to make an argument based on electromagnetics because the strangely ignored water vapour’s signature completely swamps that of CO2 never mind the saturation level of CO2. Added to that, here is an interesting way to lose some of your time. Go hunt for that data which supports the claims made against CO2 and no the product of models is not data. Just look, you will not find it. Does that not shock you? This should be the most famous data in the world and they just skip it and use deflection to the point that it has become an art.
Also and finally I say this with no evidence. Lots of people “say” lots of things for reasons we usually never know. Look at the compelling level of bad decisions Joe Biden has consciously supposedly been responsible for on the international stage. On the face of it they make no sense as they harm America. On the other hand…..
Cheers
Claiming Hickel is a reputable scientist is a joke. He’s a charlatan, an extreme activist who thinks his political opinions are science because he holds them.
Raworth and Hickel are not climate experts, they are chancers on the AGW bandwagon.
Neither Raworth or Hickel are “scientists”. What is your angle here as you are somewhat reminiscent of many under bridge dwellers I have come across.
Actually, there are grapes growing in Yorkshire, at Bolton Castle in Wensleydale in fact!
https://boltoncastle.co.uk/yorkshire-gardens/vineyard-maze/
Well worth a visit if you’re up that way.
Down here in Kent I am surrounded by literally tens of hectares of vines – it’s lovely.
https://simpsonswine.com
They do, however, often have to work literally 24 hours a day at times to protect the crop with nettings to avoid frost damage.
I am genuinely amazed they can manage to grow a crop in Wensleydale. I shall visit next time I’m up there.
There is always one :). There were not a lot of greenhouses around in Medieval times. My reference is to outdoor growth in fields
Also a vinyard near Holmfirth, Yorkshire, established at least 10 years now I guess.
The most obvious objection to this wokism is that the issue of which came first, CO2 or temperature-rise remains a belief not a scientific fact. How could any court agree that the “science is proven” when it is just proven to a set of powerful believers. Rational people are well aware that CO2 has a negligible effects on the global temperature. Nature is unlikely to pay reparations!
Who defines “excessive”?
Whoever (with a loud voice) who wants money!
At last the developing countries will then have sufficient money to develop their own oil, gas and coal power generation
Often buying equipment and expertise from developed nations.
What does “excessive levels of carbon dioxide emissions” even mean? Even the alarmists admit that the “manmade” CO2 from the entire world is only three percent of all the CO2. And ALL the CO2 in turn is only zero point zero four percent of everything in the atmosphere.
What is wrong with the alarmists? The climate changes all on its own as it has done since time immemorial irrespective of how many taxes, regulations and bans get invented.
Look at it from another direction. There is a war being prosecuted against Western Civilization, the seeds of which were planted in the Frankfurt School in the 1930s. The environment was discovered by accident as something people cared about while at the same time they understood next to nothing about back in the 60’s and 70’s and came with the hippy thing. It quickly was allowed space and political power and that was no missed by the lefties. It is no difference to the trans absurdity following the mutation of the feminist movement. They found chinks on the armour of society and they have been working them ever since. On this issue have you EVER seen a honest and balanced explanation of what CO2 is, it’s critical place for life and its historical variations out there in the public domain? No and you never will because any such attempt will be attacked by the zealots as hate speech. If I was CO2 I would not give any of my O2 molecules to CO2 “Haters” :). Just read Patrick Moore’s account of how Greenpeace was “turned”.
‘But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more.’
Ottmar Edenhofer
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/in-short/brandenburgs-research-minister-munch-welcomes-edenhofer-and-rockstrom-as-new-pik-directors
“28/01/2019 – Climate economist Ottmar Edenhofer and earth resilience researcher Johan Rockström are officially appointed as new scientific directors of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). Science and Research Minister of Germany’s Federal State Brandenburg Martina Münch acknowledged the two scientists as a “strong team for future tasks in climate and environment politics” and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as one of the world’s most influential and high-profile think tanks.”
Note the overt acknowledgement that this is a political issue.
As an ecologist, Johan Rockström can claim to be a scientist, although not a climatologist. However Otto Edenhofer, an economist, is also now described as a scientist.
He was joint chair of IPCC Working Group III for the fifth assessment report, AR5. Presumably that now confers upon him the title of “scientist”, just as economist Pachauri’s chairmanship of that body often led to him being called the “world’s leading climate scientist”.
It never was from the get go….. we are being treated to more and more absurd unelected global organizations demanding power over sovereign nations. Take the comedy villain Klaus Schwab of the marxist WTO or the even worse Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a disgraced politician who incredibly heads up the politically corrupt WHO. As for the asinine fool heading up the UN, the less said about that idiot the better for my blood pressure. All unelected, all “socialists” all demanding control over your life. If we thought the EU is bad and corrupt …. they are nothing compared to these clowns.
I note the politically corrupt WHO has co-opted the North Koreans.
North Korea Wins Leading Role at World Health Organization
https://unwatch.org/north-korea-wins-leading-role-at-world-health-organization/#:~:text=At%20the%20annual%20gathering%20of,slate%20with%20nine%20other%20countries.
‘Compensation for atmospheric appropriation’ indeed. Well, there’s just another university our grandchildren will not go to.
Funny how it’s never China in the frame…anyone see what’s happening here??
According to the IEA the use of coal in China, India and the rest of Asia was expected to be 6251Mt in 2022. This is about 40% higher than total world coal use in 2000 (4699Mt) and well over THREE times higher than coal use in the rest of the world.
The vast majority of this coal is used for power generation. The energy sector is the source of about 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and in China, India
Indonesia (the third largest producer) it is only going one way – which is up
I think the correct response involves sitting & swivelling.
This looks like a conservative estimate. A conservative government will undoubtedly embrace it 🙂
“Atmospheric appropriation”.
It’s so bad and uses so many absurd assumptions, I don’t really understand why anybody would put their name to it. Aside from the total lack of evidence of harm, and the ignoring of emissions produced for trade, its entirely clear higher CO2 emissions have increased crop yields in all these countries.
“I don’t really understand why anybody would put their name to it”.
Money dear boy, that is why they are falling over each other to get their snouts into the klymutt troff
But what are they going to spend that money on? They are destroying entire economies with their “climate” and associated “green” and “net zero” obsessions, particularly the attacks on transport.
Either the fanatics have no children or they simply don’t care what “legacy” they will leave them.
>>Money dear boy, that is why they are falling over each other to get their snouts into the klymutt troff
I have just finished re-reading one of my late wife’s favourite books, ‘After the Ice’ by Steven Mithen. This recounts the history of the last 20,000 years and the rise and fall of human societies. The major cause of societal decline? – climate change. Human societies developed and then abandoned agriculture more than once, as the natural cycles of climate impacted on their efforts in the Mesolithic. Some were forced to return to a hunter-gathering existance as the drying out of the climate made intensive agriculture impossible. With better conditions in the Neolithic, the domestication of crops became much more feasible and the full scale growth of large population centres became possible. But even then, variability of climate brought major cultures to the brink of extinction, as happened in South America, with the cycles of El Nino and La Ninja. Climate change kept the world total population small; malnutrition and disease stalked all these early societies, as is revealed by their archeological remains.
The book unfortunately, pushes the myth that current climate change is man made (published in 2003) even though the archological evidence presented could only have been caused by natural events and, were of far greater severity than anything experienced today. It could be that the present brief period of relative stability is but a statistical blip, certainly Mithen’s evidence suggest that we have been gulled into the same false sense of long-term security that our Mesolithic forebears suffered from.
The book emphasises the failure of religious belief in any of the cultures to prevent the oncoming climate tragedy – no amount of weeping and wailing or bloodletting had the slightest effect. And, no belief based on a computer simulation, leading to untimely and precipitate action, will have the slightest effect on the natural course of events today.
Unlike those Mesolithic and Neolithis victims however, we have the means to mitigate against the natural course of events. But, not if we waste all that potential energy on chasing the chimera of CO2 based climate change as the only cause possible.
Paul’s painstaking work, based on real data, is the only safe guide for decision making. But, with the main causes of climate change only barely understood and climate models based on a crude, ‘steady-state’ formulation developed in the late 18th C, we are on very unsafe ground in claiming any degree of certainty.
There are too many universities in this country. This one, Leeds, would be a good one to start the cull.
These people have no jursidiction over anyone and no standing. Their “study” is an exercise in political wishful or more properly, malevolent thinking that deserves to be ignored.
How about we bill all these chancers royalties for the use of all the technology that wouldn’t exist if we British hadn’t initiated the Industrial Revolution, from the steam engine right through to satellite communications?
I reckon that will amount to considerably more than $170 trillion
Ah – just seen your comment 😎🤣🤣🤣
Have they factored in all the offshoots of our industrial advances – cars, electricity generation, aircraft, comms of all colours, plastics etc etc? No, I thought not. If they did then we would be evens.
Every which way to forward the obscene marxist cause they all espouse….
The reparations band wagon goes merrily on its way. According to a study by Marco Grasso (university of Milano-Bicocca ) and Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute, fossil fuel companies owe $209 billion in reparations for climate damage. The study, with the title “Time to pay the piper” is published in One Earth.
If it wasn’t for the West’s progress in industrialisation and it’s spreading the knowledge and uplifting the general lives of the undeveloped nations, they, and probably us, would still be in mud huts, mutilating their girls and starving periodically. The Arabs without us using fossil fuel, would be still lusting after their camels and living in tents. The Chinese would still be starving periodically and likewise the Indians. Not all was good from the West but ask the average guy in those countries what they would prefer. Rather than paying them they should show their appreciation.
Thanks to the increase in atmospheric CO2 (largely due to the “wealthier” countries), the people in the poorer countries have much more food and much less starvation. Should the latter people pay the former for this huge benefit?
Wealth is a proxy for freedom. Your freedom is what they wish to take. They want YOU to become a developing nation (sic).
Cos reasons.
All of their causes are to get you to surrender, and for them to feel good about stealing. “Climate change” is about stealing and destroying. The Science is settled.
‘could be liable to pay a total of USD 170 trillion in compensation to low-emitters like India to ensure climate change targets are met by 2050, according to a new study’
What is a ‘climate change target?’
How does giving money to India ensure it?
It is nonsense. So give up your money.
If this were to be agreed there should be three conditions for any country receiving a payment:
1. Removal of all motorised means of transport, including trains, motorbikes and military vehicles.
2. Removal of all electronic equipment including phones, radios, TVs, computers.
3. Total prohibition on the generation or transmission of electricity.
Presumably the people will feel enriched by the removal of the evils of industrialisation.