I have a new paper that's out today in The Lancet Planetary Health, quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown. I'll discuss the method and results in the thread below. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
1. I start from the position that the atmosphere is a commons, and that all have equal rights to it within the planetary boundary of 350ppm (which we crossed in 1990). This allows us to determine which nations have exceeded their share, and thus contributed to climate breakdown.
2. Results:

-The USA is responsible for 40% of excess global CO2 emissions.

-The European Union (EU-28) is responsible for 29%.

-The Global North as a group is responsible for 92%.
3. By contrast, most countries in the Global South remain *within their fair shares*, including India, Indonesia, Nigeria and China, which means they have contributed nothing to climate breakdown (although China will overshoot its fair share very soon).
4. The global South - the entire continents of Africa, Latin America and Asia - have contributed only 8% of global excess emissions. And that comes from only a few countries.
5. And yet, according to the Climate Vulnerability Monitor, the South suffers more than 90% of the costs of climate breakdown, and 98% of the deaths associated with climate breakdown.
6. This represents a process of atmospheric colonisation. Just as rich countries have relied on the appropriation of labour and resources from the South to fuel their growth, so they have appropriated atmospheric commons, with devastating consequences for the colonized.
7. If our struggle against climate breakdown is not attentive to these colonial dimensions - if it is not ultimately a struggle against colonization - then we have missed the point.
8. Here are the top overshooters (climate debtors) and undershooters (climate creditors).

And here is a free PDF download of the paper: jasonhickel.org/s/Hickel-Quant…
9. I should add, we can quantify the scale of atmospheric theft. Overshoot nations have stolen 265 billion tons of "fair share" CO2 from the rest of the world, while also emitting an additional 684.6 billion tons of CO2 in excess of the planetary boundary.
10. I should clarify that here I used consumption-based emissions data as much as possible to account for offshoring by rich nations.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jason Hickel

Jason Hickel Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jasonhickel

7 Sep
This new paper really upends conventional narratives about international development. Basically, poor countries are developing rich countries, not the other way around. I'll highlight the key points in the thread below:
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
1. High-income countries rely on a large *net appropriation* of resources from the global South, including:

-10.1 billion tons of raw materials
-379 billion hours of human labour
-22.7 EJ of energy
-800 million hectares of land

That's for a single year, 2015.
2. In other words, rich countries take significantly more resources and labour from the global South than they give. But this net appropriation is not accompanied by a net payment of funds. On the contrary, high-income nations maintain a monetary *surplus* in trade.
Read 11 tweets
3 Sep
My heart is utterly broken over the news that my good friend and comrade David Graeber has passed away. It is impossible to process this... it seems completely unreal. There is simultaneously too much to say and no words, but let me attempt a few:
One cannot overstate the significance of David's contribution to struggles for justice in the US, UK and many other parts of the world. Millions of people have learned from and been shaped by his writing, teaching, and example.
His analysis was as clear as it was courageous. He was unflinching and incorruptible. There was no myth he would not question, no hegemony he would not expose. He saw through every ruse that the powerful have going.
Read 7 tweets
13 Aug
If you haven't come across this Nature piece yet, it's must-reading. "Evidence is mounting that tipping points could be more likely than was previously thought... we are in a climate emergency." Also, a devastating blow to William Nordhaus. nature.com/articles/d4158…
"Some economists have suggested that 3 °C warming is optimal from a cost–benefit perspective. However, if tipping points are more likely, then the ‘optimal policy’ is that warming must be limited to 1.5 °C. This requires an emergency response."
"If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization. No amount of economic cost–benefit analysis is going to help us. We need to change our approach to the climate problem."
Read 4 tweets
20 Jul
It's astonishing, when you think about it, that neoliberal economists actively target an "optimal" or "ideal" level of unemployment. Imagine if we sought to induce an optimal level of starvation, or an optimal level of homelessness.
The optimal level of unemployment is zero, and it can be accomplished with a Job Guarantee. Neoliberals say we need unemployment (the NAIRU) to protect against inflation. But it's not true. Pavlina Tcherneva shows that a JG is more effective at delivering monetary stability.
Read 4 tweets
6 Jul
Big news today. Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Poverty and Human Rights, has just released his final report. It is a withering indictment of the "progress" narrative, and of the poverty line on which it is built. chrgj.org/wp-content/upl…
The "self-congratulatory" narrative promoted by Steven Pinker, Martin Wolf, Banerjee/Duflo and the World Bank is wrong, Alston argues. It relies on a poverty line that "is not based on any direct assessment of the cost of
essential needs."
"The IPL should not be treated as the basis on which to determine whether we are eradicating poverty, or as the benchmark for SDG1. The line is so low and arbitrary as to guarantee a positive result and to enable the UN, WB, and many commentators to proclaim a Pyrrhic victory."
Read 8 tweets
15 Jun
Since Boris Johnson is now so keen that we do not "photo shop" British history, I thought I would take a minute to tell the full, unedited story of that crowning achievement of Britain's past, the Industrial Revolution:
1) When I was taught about the Industrial Revolution in school, I was told it emerged spontaneously from great British inventions like the steam engine and the flying shuttle. Turns out the real history is significantly darker, and much more violent, than this fairy tale admits.
2) Remember, the core commodity of the Industrial Revolution was cotton. But cotton does not grow in Britain... or anywhere in Europe. To get it, the British stole land from Indigenous Americans to build plantations, massacring those who resisted.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!