Not satisfied with its dubious piece: “Analysis: Record-low price for UK offshore wind is nine times cheaper than gas” , CarbonBrief recently decided to seek to ensure that Britain’s falling down the rankings of cumulative greenhouse gas emitters is reversed. After all, it’s essential that we here in the UK are made to pay for climate change, even if China has emitted more greenhouse gases in the last eight years than the UK has done since the industrial revolution. Or, to put it another way (as the BBC did as long ago as May 2021): “China emissions exceed all developed nations combined”.
Still, never mind all that, China is a developing country – apparently – so we must go easy on them. No, it’s you and me who have to pay, and here’s why. It’s because we have to take colonial rule into account. And (this is the good bit if you hate the west and love India and China), when we attribute all greenhouse gas emissions from colonial countries to their colonial masters, hey presto! Suddenly the situation looks very different. OK, the USA still tops the cumulative league tables, and China is still in second place, but France’s share increases by half, the UK’s doubles [so the article says, but persevere with the article, and actually it increases by 70%, which is a long way from doubling], the Netherlands’ nearly triples, Portugal’s more than triples, and the EU and the UK collectively see their contributions rise by “nearly a third”, to 19% [later on the article says they rise by 28%, which is nearer to a quarter than to a third. I struggle to take seriously an article with such internal contradictions].
And that’s not all. India’s share falls by 15%, while Indonesia and the whole continent of Africa also see their contributions fall by 24%. Isn’t that great? Now they can play the victim card with ever greater confidence, and it’s so much harder to blame them for anything. We can conveniently ignore the fact that India is now the world’s third largest greenhouse gas emitter on an annual basis, we can concentrate instead on the fact cumulatively it now drops to seventh place. Instead, the UK is in fourth place (leaping up from eighth place, and helpfully leap-frogging India in the process) and Germany is in sixth (sadly moving up only from seventh place, but I suppose it’s better than nothing). Excellent – make them pay!
There’s another sleight of hand that can be used to make the situation even worse for those former colonialists:
When weighted by current populations, the Netherlands (2,014tCO2 per person) and the UK (1,922tCO2) become the world’s top emitters on a cumulative per-capita basis. They are followed by Russia (1,655tCO2), the US (1,560tCO2) and Canada (1,524tCO2).
On this per-capita measure, China (217tCO2 per person), the continent of Africa (92tCO2) and India (52tCO2) are far behind developed nations’ contributions to warming.
This handily side-steps the fact that China’s current day per capita emissions are higher – more than 50% higher – than those in the UK.
Finally, give those former colonial powers a good kicking while they’re down:
Many former colonial powers are also net CO2 importers today. While data on CO2 imports and exports is limited, available figures further raise their shares of historical emissions.
Regarding that last point, not only would I – in fairness – concede that there’s something in it, it’s a point I have in the past made myself. I think it’s probably the best argument in the whole CarbonBrief piece.
The problem with the main thesis is that it largely seems to be based upon deforestation taking place under colonial rule. The issue here is that it seems to attribute it all to the decision-making power of the colonial master in each case, regardless of the reason the deforestation took place or of who ordered it. It seems historically ignorant, given how much of – for instance – modern-day India’s day-to-day rule under the British Empire was left to Indian princes. Thus, to attribute everything that went on in India during this period to the UK is simply inaccurate.
CarbonBrief’s analysis seems to assume that native rulers and inhabitants failed to receive any benefit from what went on in their lands during the colonial period, and it denies them any agency at all. It is in fact an analysis based on a colonialist mindset that assumes the locals could do – and did – nothing for themselves and the Europeans did everything, decided everything, and were the only beneficiaries. Clearly this isn’t the case.
CarbonBrief knows this, saying:
Arguably, the true share of responsibility for current warming lies somewhere between these two extremes, where emissions are fully assigned to either the colonial powers or their former colonies.
Arguably it does, but it doesn’t seem to be how CarbonBrief’s final analysis pans out. Instead, it’s all our fault:
This analysis assigns full responsibility for past emissions to those with ultimate decision-making authority at the time, namely, the colonial rulers.
CarbonBrief purport to rely heavily on the ideas expressed by Professor Beinert and Lotte Hughes in their 2007 book “Environment and Empire”, and sections of it are quoted about the colonial powers’ hunger for natural resources, which is fair enough, so far as it goes. Strangely, however, another more noble point is made:
Yet, as colonial forests were denuded of their ability to produce high-quality timber, colonisation also led to the beginnings of “conservationist practices and ideas”, Beinart and Hughes write:
“[W]hile natural resources have been intensely exploited, a related process, the rise of conservationist practices and ideas, was also deeply rooted in imperial history. Large tracts of land have been reserved for forests, national parks or wildlife.”
And it seems that the locals were not perhaps as denied of agency (or responsibility for forestry) as has been implied, since we are also told:
The book quotes Hugh Cleghorn, conservator of forests for the Madras presidency, writing in 1861 of the “careless rapacity of the native population…who cut and cleared [forests]…without being in any way under the control or regulation of authority”.
We seem to receive no (carbon) credit for putting an end to that with the creation of an Indian Forest Department in 1864, even though surely credit is due?
And although the next quote is thrown in presumably to damn the British, it actually strikes me as being rather more exculpatory than damning (at least so far as deforestation and associated greenhouse gas emissions are concerned):
“British imperial control of India had a major impact on its extraordinarily varied range of trees and forest products. It also restricted access to forests by poor people…That later exclusion of humans from wildlife parks was also partly rooted in the forest laws of the colonial people, which treated local people as wasteful and destructive…But pressures on the forest did not end with independence. The current rate of deforestation is said to be well over one million ha every year.”
A similar point could be made regarding the behaviour of the Dutch in Indonesia. (The poor Dutch, by the way, move up from somewhere below 35 on the cumulative emissions scale to thirteenth place).
We are treated to another quote:
The Dutch discovered the tobacco industry in Deli in the 1860s and created an industrial-scale plantation system. The local sultans collaborated and gave concessions of 1,000–2,000 hectares of land to each company in a 75-year lease. The Dutch colonial planters assumed that tobacco could only grow well in the soil that had just been cleared from the virgin jungle. Thus, the industry drove large-scale virgin forests clearing to produce tobacco leaves exported to Europe and America.”
So who is responsible? The Dutch colonial planters or the local sultans who leased them the land? Or should responsibility be shared?
Be that all as it may, CarbonBrief really make hay with the concept of historical per capita assumptions. Obviously if countries with large populations (such as India or Indonesia) can transfer a great deal of responsibility for their emissions to countries with much smaller populations (such as the UK or the Netherlands) then a massively distorted result can be obtained. And so it is, and CarbonBrief loves it. It tells us that on this (rather convoluted) basis, colonial powers are the top cumulative emitters per population in 2023, while the likes of China and India are far behind.
I have to say, it takes overwhelming chutzpah to give China a free pass in this way, given that it is the second greatest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gas emissions (behind only the USA), that its current day per capita emissions greatly exceed those of the UK, and that it is building new coal-fired power stations at a rate of knots. Despite all that, on this clever new basis of allocating responsibility for emissions, China has less than one eighth of the responsibility of the Netherlands, India appears to have barely 5% of the responsibility of the UK. Surely even CarbonBrief appreciate that this is an illegitimate piece of legerdemain?
Interestingly, the analysis seeks only to attribute responsibility from 1850, citing incomplete data among other reasons for this decision. However, read to the end of the article, and perhaps China isn’t so innocent after all (though of course this piece of information is omitted from the final figures in the analysis):
The picture is a little different for LULUCF. Figures from OSCAR, one of the three bookkeeping models used for post-1850 LULUCF estimates, extend back as far as 1701.
These figures show that some 93GtCO2 was released globally, during 1750-1850, equivalent to nearly 4% of the cumulative total from all sources during 1850-2023.
Nearly a quarter of this total originates in China and would not be reassigned on the basis of colonial rule.
But ignoring this in the analysis is OK, because “1850 is usually taken as the reference year for historical simulations and marks the starting point for temperature changes, which are generally measured against an 1850-1900 baseline.” Phew – that was close!
I conclude that the analysis is undoubtedly of interest, and I enjoyed reading it (honestly). However, it strikes me that its main purpose – especially given the timing of its release (26th November 2023) was to provide ammunition to developing countries with huge carbon footprints ahead of the “loss and damage” negotiations that are taking place at COP28. My only consolation is that it will probably prove to have been a waste of the authors’ time, insofar as they may have hoped that it would facilitate payment, based on climate guilt, from developed to developing countries. I very much doubt that this will come to pass.
Climate Scepticism 
Mark,
Thank you for drawing attention to this particularly pathetic example of data torture. What some people will do to bolster a preferred narrative seems to have no limits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
Data torture is what it is. I was tempted to refer to Disraeli’s line about there being lies, damned lies, and statistics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
The other point I possibly should have mentioned is what I regard as the lack of logic associated with obsessing about responsibility for past emissions while being anxious to avoid blaming those countries who are responsible for the bulk of ongoing emissions today. After all, if we really are facing a climate emergency with numerous tipping points being imminent, then surely the imperative is to rapidly reduce the ongoing emissions. Yet CarbonBrief seems anxious, with its torturing of statistics, to give today’s biggest emitters a free pass, while beating up those responsible for some (but by no means all) of past emissions.
If I were a cynic, rather than a humble sceptic, I might suspect that they don’t actually believe in the urgent need to reduce emissions to avoid climate catastrophe, and instead that the whole thing is a device to facilitate arguments aimed at forcing the developed western world to fork out £$trillions to the rest of the world. And if that’s right, why do CarbonBrief hate us so much?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
Yes, it is a bit of a give away. If they were truly concerned with reducing risk, they wouldn’t be obsessing over the history.
LikeLike
I think this is what is technically called b*llocks:
“Decline of rare UK bat linked to tree felling for British empire’s fleets
Rife deforestation 500 years ago aligns with western barbastelle slump, finds study of bat DNA”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/14/decline-of-rare-uk-bat-linked-to-tree-felling-for-british-empires-fleets
I will grant that tree-felling for the British navy was extensive during part (but only part) of the period referred to. 500 years ago there wasn’t even a Britain (in the form of a nation state) let alone a British navy or a British empire. There may be many reasons why the bat in question has declined, but British colonialism 500 years ago isn’t one of them. This just sounds like another piece in the never-ending jigsaw of blaming European colonialism for everything, whether the claim is justified or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, it’s a con as usual. I can’t copy the relevant text from the research article, because they’ve blocked copy/paste, but I can tell you that these bats prefer DEAD and mature oaks and beech trees. Whereas ship building activities did remove mature oak trees, they did not result in clear felling of deciduous forests, which covered 15% of Britain in 1086, only 8% by 1650, declining to 5.1% by 1924, thereafter INCREASING to 10% in 2012. So maybe there has been a continuing decline in very large, old oak trees and dead oak trees but it’s reasonable to suppose that the modern obsession with removing dead or dying trees over ‘elf n safety’ concerns is probably also responsible for bat population declines. Also, the authors admit that there is a very high correlation between artificial lighting and declines in genetic diversity, even higher than that with declines in deciduous woodland cover. So pointing the finger of blame at ancient ship-building is, as you say, just another example of British empire bashing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Deforestation effect of UK consumption unsustainable, say MPs
Committee finds British consumers contributing particularly highly to destruction of world’s forests”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/04/deforestation-effect-of-uk-consumption-unsustainable-say-mps
I am actually conflicted by this article. On the one hand, I think it is undeniable tat we in the UK have not only off-shored our GHG emissions, but have also off-shored a lot of environmental damage. To that extent, I welcome the report.
On the other hand, as so often, I doubt the accuracy of its findings, which seem to me to be grossly exaggerated and implausible. For example:
Of course, the report craftily talks about a “footprint per tonne“, thus suggesting that the UK is worse than China. Given that China’s population is probably around 20 x more than the UK’s, of course the effect of China’s consumption (in its happily increasingly wealthy – and unhappily, therefore, consumerist – society) is massively more than that of the UK’s consumption. Lies, damned lies and statistics to the fore once again.
Nevertheless, the article makes for an interesting read, IMO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“UK facing calls at Commonwealth summit to pay billons for role in climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/20/starmer-faces-slavery-reparations-demands-at-commonwealth-summit
...Philip Davis, the prime minister of the Bahamas, told the Observer that his country needed help from the UK and others to pay for damage caused by extreme weather events and to help save it from the worst effects of rising sea levels.
Davis said: “The Commonwealth is the ideal forum for making progress on reparations. Our very name echoes the principles and values of the necessary stewardship of the wealth we hold in common – our shared planet.
“Bringing together some of the richest nations on the world with some of the most vulnerable gives us the urgent responsibility for finding a solution to the global shocks that threaten the loss of lives and livelihoods.”
He added: “For island states – which make up nearly half of the membership of the Commonwealth – it’s a threat which is truly existential. If we cannot find ways to make our countries more resilient to these shocks, we will not survive.”…
...a study in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability last year concluded it will owe £6.2 trillion in climate reparations by 2050 because of its carbon emissions since 1960.
Britain has insisted it will not pay reparations and does not want to discuss it at the summit but it will be up to leaders of all of the member nations to decide what is on the agenda, according to the Commonwealth Secretariat....
LikeLike
“Handful of countries responsible for climate crisis, top court told
Vanuatu envoy makes claim as hearing gets under way at international court of justice in The Hague”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/02/handful-of-countries-responsible-for-climate-crisis-icj-court-told
I have posted about variations of this story under a couple of articles, but it’s relevant here, I think, for this:
…Over the next two weeks, the court will hear statements from 98 countries, including wealthy developed states with the greatest historical responsibility for the climate emergency, such as the UK and Russia, and states that have contributed very little to global greenhouse gas emissions but stand to bear the brunt of their impact, including Bangladesh and Sudan as well as Pacific island countries.…
At least it recognises that the two countries in first and second place, in respect of cumulative emissions, are the USA and China:
…The US and China, the world’s biggest emitters, will make statements too, even though neither fully recognises the court’s authority….
But why single out the UK and Russia? Yes, Russia, cumulatively, is in third place, but on any measure Germany is in fourth place. I suppose there’s no danger that China, USA (especially under a Trump Presidency) or Russia will pay a penny. Germany tends to escape culpability (if that’s the right word in this context) by being lumped in with the other EU countries. And since we seem to have a government desperate to self-flagellate (or at least to flagellate its citizens), I guess we’re in the firing line. Even though any opinion issued by the Court will be advisory only, I wouldn’t be surprised if our “leading the world” leaders also end up leading it in paying up some guilt money. The thing is, I can’t see that any other country will be following any such leadership.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark; someone should mention “embedded carbon”. Back when we were the workshop of the world, emitting copious amounts of carbon (for the time), how much of that production was for the domestic market and how much went for export all over the world? My guess would be that domestic consumption was the lesser part so the majority of our historic emissions should be on other countries’ balance sheets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike H, that’s a very good point. We are now often (rightly, I think) told that measuring only the UK’s domestic emissions misses those associated with imports. That being the case, when the UK was a manufacturing and exporting power house, it’s only fair to attribute the emissions associated with the exports to those countries that used those products.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH – great observation, As Mark notes above.
The proverb – “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” springs to mind.
Can find various meanings for the phrase, but most apt in this context –
“If something is good for one person, it should be equally as good for another person; someone who treats another in a certain way should not complain if the same is done to them.”
LikeLike
“Threat to Kashmir’s iconic chinar trees – and the fight to save them”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgee5ywq2vo
...The chinar is an iconic symbol of the Kashmir valley’s landscape and a major tourist draw, especially in autumn when the trees’ leaves light up in fiery hues of flaming red to a warm auburn.
The trees are native to Central Asia but were introduced to Kashmir centuries ago by Mughal emperors and princely kings. Over the years, they have come to occupy an important place in Kashmiri culture.
But rapid urbanisation, illegal logging and climate change are threatening their survival, prompting authorities to take steps to conserve them....
As so often, the article lazily throws climate change in to the mix, and makes no attempt to establish the levels of threat from each of the three causes stated. MY guess would be that urbanisation is a real problem, illegal logging is clearly extremely destructive, while climate change – if it’s a factor at all – is probably a distant third. The article has this to say about climate change:
…chinar trees need a cool climate to survive, but the region has been experiencing warmer summers and snowless winters of late.…
It then almost immediately makes a statement that contradicts that:
…But on the bright side, these trees can live for hundreds of years – the oldest chinar tree in the region is believed to be around 700 years old. A majority of the trees are at least a few centuries old and have massive trunks and sprawling canopies.…
It must be the case that trees of such great age have witnessed quite a few warmer summers and snowless winters in the past – and they’re still here (or at least they are until someone chops them down or urban sprawl takes them out).
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Guardian is still pushing the absurd claim that the British empire means the UK is far more responsible for greenhouse gas emissions than the really the case:
“‘We can’t step back in time’: a new book about eco anxiety and climate change
University professor’s visit to ancestral lands in China unleashes waves of ‘eco anxiety’ and results in new book Red Pockets”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/20/we-cant-step-back-in-time-a-new-book-about-eco-anxiety-and-climate-change
…The past lurks in and transforms the present in all kinds of ways. The countries that have been most responsible for the climate crisis are often not the ones being most affected in the present. When the UK’s colonial history is taken into account, for instance, it moves from eighth to fourth on the list of nations responsible for the biggest historical emissions. Despite this knowledge, equitable ways to address this – climate reparations, a sufficient loss and damage fund – remain neglected or inadequate...
That statement is dropped casually in to a book review. I can’t say that the review is going to persuade me to rush out and buy the book either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s going on? Suddenly the Guardian is once more actively pushing the claim that the UK has farm more historic liability for cumulative GHG emissions than is really the case:
“Only strong action on emissions can restore economic stability, UN climate chief says
Simon Stiell says investors ‘ready to hit the go button’ if they have the right signals from governments”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/20/only-strong-action-on-emissions-can-restore-economic-stability-un-climate-chief-says
…Catherine Pettengell, the executive director of Climate Action Network UK, said: “Climate action is in everyone’s interests, for stability and prosperity at home and all around the world. The UK has demonstrated leadership with its [national plan for cutting greenhouse gas emissions], but domestic action alone is not sufficient. The real test of UK climate leadership is the provision of climate finance to those least responsible but suffering the most devastating impacts of climate change.
“As the fifth largest historical emitter and sixth largest economy, the UK has both the responsibility and the capability to do far more to invest in the climate action needed and to ensure no one is left behind in the domestic and global transition.”
Signatories to the letter included Action Aid, Concern Worldwide, Greenpeace, Oxfam, Save the Children and the RSPB....
The words I have highlighted in bold aren’t true. The last time I checked the UK was in 8th place in terms of cumulative emissions, and as other nations accelerate their GHG emissions, we are steadily slipping down the rankings.
LikeLike
Mark Hodgson, thank you for this quote. Catherine Pettengell speaks of “stability and prosperity at home” and yet Net Zero, the CCA 2008, and related government mandates (e.g. for EVs) have for years been crushing the UK economy and especially the working class and their jobs. Where is the social stability and climate justice in that, Catherine?
And since we know from David Turver’s work (https://davidturver.substack.com/p/why-eroei-matters?utm_source=publication-search) that current renewables have a very poor value of Energy Return On Energy Invested when buffered to ensure the provision of reliable, dispatchable electricity then nobody should be financing them for grid applications; stand-alone operation far from the grid is a different matter, provided their energy intermittency is tolerable. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just watched BBC Two – Backlash: The Murder of George Floyd thinking it would give some background/reasons for what happened/caused George’s tragic death.
Partial quote from the BBC link –
“With unseen archive footage and compelling interviews, this feature documentary tells the story of how the police killing in Minneapolis went viral, causing the biggest civil unrest in the US in living memory, and then went global, landing with enormous impact in the UK. Catching the government, police and media establishment off-guard, the sudden explosion of Black Lives Matter protests, driven by young people pouring onto the streets, not only shone the spotlight on police brutality but also exposed deep divides in the UK over matters of race. Suddenly, celebrities, brands and institutions were all expressing their views on Black Lives Matter. But as the protesters started to topple statues and challenge British history, a backlash was brewing that brought a counter-protest onto the streets.”
Yep, you guessed, Sins of the Fathers – Edward Colston: ‘Why the statue had to fall’ Edward Colston: ‘Why the statue had to fall’ – BBC News
LikeLike
Why India is to blame for nothing and the UK is to blame for everything:
“‘Huge energy challenges’: how can India make the leap to become a green, clean country?
As deadly heatwaves become more frequent, demand for life-saving cooling is further straining India’s generation capacity”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/28/huge-energy-challenges-how-can-india-make-leap-green-clean-country
…India is in absolute terms the third biggest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the US, but the country rejects this measure as unfair. “This is not a valid metric, which is why India has argued for a long time about historic responsibility from the perspective of cumulative emissions and a fair share of the carbon budget,” said one person with knowledge of India’s climate negotiations.…
...an Indian minister stood up and fought over the coal debate in Glasgow at Cop28 in 2023, when India and China were highly criticised by some representatives from the EU, US, UK and some island nations because they insisted on the phase-down rather than phase-out of coal in the final agreement. Coal is undoubtedly the dirtiest of fossil fuels, but India remains heavily reliant on its abundant domestic supply of coal for energy security and economic growth, accounting for about 70% of total electricity generation currently and half of its overall energy capacity.
For the Indian government the focus on coal is another example of the west’s hypocrisy. The UK, US, Germany and other formerly coal-centric nations switched to fracked gas only after exhausting cheap domestic supplies and exporting manufacturing to developing countries such as India and China. India on the other hand relies mostly on costly gas imports, making it unviable as an alternative to coal for reliable base-load capacity – the minimum continuous electricity a power grid needs to meet steady demand, which is particularly crucial for its industrial and economic growth, the Indian government says....
…“Even if India shuts down all of its coal tomorrow, if the US keeps drilling and the EU keeps expanding their fossil fuels, we are going to face an increasing frequency of extreme events anyway. For us, the most urgent requirement then becomes adaptation. We have to invest in early warning systems and shelters to make sure that people are protected, especially vulnerable populations.”
India’s delegation to the UN climate talks is relatively small considering the country’s size, diversity and challenges, with only a dozen or so top-level negotiators. The negotiators are regularly replaced due to India’s bureaucratic system, a legacy of British rule, which means the delegation can lack negotiating capacity and institutional history.…[My emphasis].
…“India will keep the pressure on for finance for developing countries but they know they are not getting anything, so are buying time and just doing things on their own,” said Harjeet Singh, an Indian climate activist and strategic adviser to the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.
“Coal will be phased down and not out until there’s technology for heavy industries, but the transition is going to happen. India wants to become a green, clean country. There are typical developing country challenges, too much bureaucracy and lack of capacity. But the intent is there. The writing is on the wall.”
LikeLike