Data injustice in climate studies

The stark contrast in per-capita consumption-based carbon emissions between countries in the Global North and the Global South. This disparity underscores a fundamental inequity: nations that contribute the least to global #greenhousegasemissions often bear the brunt of #climatechange's adverse effects. The graph shows the consumption-based emissions, carbon emissions to the country where goods and services are consumed rather than where they are produced. This methodology reveals the true carbon footprint of a nation's lifestyle. Wealthier nations have higher consumption patterns, leading to more significant emissions. This is not just due to industrial activities but also because of the demand for goods and services that have high carbon footprints. Many developed countries have shifted manufacturing and production to developing nations. While this move reduces their production-based emissions, their consumption-based emissions remain high because they still consume these goods. Developed countries have historically contributed the most to cumulative global emissions due to early industrialization. This historical context adds another layer to the injustice, as past emissions continue to affect the current climate. As we lead to the next round of negotiations at #COP29 we must recognise that those who contribute most to emissions have a greater responsibility to lead in mitigation efforts and provide financial and technological aid to countries in the Global South to help them adapt to climate impacts and develop sustainably.

Insightful💡 "They are supposed to be the climate-savers’ gold standard — the key data on which the world relies in its efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions and hold global warming in check. But the national inventories of emissions supplied to the United Nations climate convention (UNFCCC) by most countries are anything but reliable, according to a growing body of research. The data supplied to the UNFCCC, and published(1) on its website, are typically out of date, inconsistent, and incomplete. For most countries, “I would not put much value, if any, on the submissions,” says Glen Peters of the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway, a longtime analyst of emissions trends. The data from large emitters is as much open to questions as that from smaller and less industrialised nations. In China, the uncertainties around its carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal are larger than the total emissions of many major industrial countries. And companies preparing data for its carbon-trading system have been accused of widespread data fraud. In the United States, an analysis published(2) this month of the air over the country’s oil and natural gas fields found that they emit three times more methane — a gas responsible for a third of current warming — than the government has reported." 1) https://lnkd.in/e-qhZ9nS 2) https://lnkd.in/eKcNgGim Read more https://lnkd.in/exAHHXEE #future #sustainability #climatechange #emissions #data #climateaction #climategoals #unitednations

📢 𝗧𝘄𝗼-𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱’𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝟭𝟬% Check out our new attribution study in Nature Climate Change led by Sarah Schöngart and co-authored by Zebedee Nicholls, Setu Pelz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, and myself. https://lnkd.in/d2Scxtgy 🔎 We link data on emissions #inequality over the period 1990–2020 to regional warming and resulting climate extremes using an emulator-based framework. We find that: ▪️ 𝗧𝘄𝗼-𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗱𝘀 (𝗼𝗻𝗲-𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵) 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝟭𝟬% (𝟭%) of the global population, meaning that their individual contributions are 6.5 (20) times the average per capita contribution to global warming. ▪️For extreme events, the 𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝟭𝟬% (𝟭%) 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝟳 (𝟮𝟲) 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗹𝘆 𝟭-𝗶𝗻-𝟭𝟬𝟬-𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 and 6 (17) times more to Amazon droughts. ▪️Our granular impact analysis shows that 𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 concentrated among wealthier populations worldwide. While emissions inequality has long been recognized, our study is the first to 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 for global temperature rise and extreme climate events. The findings have significant implications for climate justice, underscoring the stark disparities in responsibility for climate impacts. They provide a strong evidence base for 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 targeting the world’s highest emitters. Nature Magazine, ETH Zürich, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

During my MS in Development Studies, I researched 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀. In a village near Mardan, KPK Pakistan I interviewed elders who explained how they 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟴 𝗳𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘁. They noticed changes: -- in the river’s sound, --shifts in animal behaviour, -- patterns in the sky. This knowledge signals passed down through generations. Because of that, their community evacuated early and survived. When I later compared this with global data, the pattern was the same. Disaster organisations in the 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀, 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗭𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝗕𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗮, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗮 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 because it identifies threats earlier than technology. This raises a simple but important point: 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆. Yet globally, they are still treated as “participants” rather than essential decision-makers. In political ecology and environmental anthropology, this is called epistemic injustice, when certain knowledge systems are undervalued simply because they don’t come from technical institutions. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗿𝗮𝘇𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝗖𝗢𝗣𝟯𝟬, 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲. The world depends on Indigenous peoples to protect biodiversity, maintain forests, and monitor environmental changes, yet when climate policy is written, their role becomes symbolic instead of structural. My research in Pakistan, and evidence from across the world shows that 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁, 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱. Because climate change is not only a scientific problem. It is a knowledge problem. We cannot keep designing policies in rooms that exclude the people who understand the land the most. Until Indigenous communities are treated as core contributors rather than invited spectators, our global climate response will remain incomplete, and far less effective than it could be.

🌍 Who Shapes the “Just Transition”? A Mirror to the Politics of Knowledge in Climate Research Our new paper, published in Environmental Research Letters (ERL), exposes how a small circle of scholars and journals — mostly in the Global North — dominate the framing of “just transition”, steering it toward technocratic fixes and energy transitions while marginalising debates about structural inequality, power, and justice. Using bibliometric analysis of over 5,000 papers published between 1986 and 2023, we uncover how intellectual hegemony operates quietly — through citations, journals, and “legitimate” epistemic regimes — shaping what counts as knowledge, whose voices are heard, and which futures are imaginable. At stake is not just academic balance but the legitimacy of global climate governance itself. If the “just transition” is to be truly just, it must draw from diverse epistemologies — especially from the Global South, where climate injustices are lived most sharply and where innovation often takes place outside formal academia. Read the full paper here 👉 https://lnkd.in/esTVS4d2 #JustTransition #ClimateJustice #KnowledgePolitics #GlobalSouth #EnvironmentalResearch #ClimateChange #IntellectualHegemony #Sustainability #Equity

After a chat with Marco on Friday about urban data analytics, I was inspired. Over the weekend, I used TraceRent's powerful datasets to plot Vancouver's climate inequities i.e., a project that took just a couple of hours but delivered stark, high-impact findings. Quick analysis reveals critical "Convergence Zones" where heat risk is maximized, showing exactly where the housing sector and city planning must focus to protect residents. Key Data Points, Powered by TraceRent: 4X Higher Health Risk: Our most socially deprived communities faced a fourfold higher risk during the 2021 heat dome. Data shows us exactly which buildings and blocks need urgent, equitable protection. The 80%+ Impervious Trap: We confirmed that core urban areas with over 80% hardscape act as thermal amplifiers, driving dangerous indoor temperatures and increasing utility costs for residents. 1% Net Canopy Loss (2014-2020): Our region is losing its natural cooling infrastructure, putting more pressure on mechanical solutions in housing. This isn't just theory but it's actionable data. Happy to learn if there has been any similar quick data dives that has shifted your perspective recently. #DataAnalytics #ClimateEquity #Housing #Vancouver #TraceRent #UrbanResilience #PropTech #ESG #UrbanPlanning

A lovely article - by Parul Anand and Mark Coeckelbergh (2026) "The paper unfolds in three sections. First, it demonstrates how AI’s environmental footprint across its full lifecycle, from development to deployment, constitutes a global climate justice concern. This includes analysis of energy use and water consumption in data centres, as well as the geopolitical implications of mineral extraction for hardware. Second, the paper examines what applying a climate justice perspective to AI ethics entails. Drawing on political philosophy, it focuses on two core dimensions of justice: distributional (who bears the costs and benefits of AI’s environmental impacts) and procedural (who is included in, or excluded from, decision-making about AI development and deployment). Together, these dimensions inform a set of conceptual and normative tools for assessing the AI-climate nexus, with particular relevance to Global South contexts. Finally, the paper grounds this discussion in a case study of India, illustrating how AI development intersects with climate vulnerability and global environmental inequality. The paper concludes by reflecting on how a climate justice approach can clarify the ethical stakes of AI’s environmental impacts and contribute to more inclusive and globally relevant AI governance" https://lnkd.in/d66utGYQ

I have always believed that openness and transparency are essential when building climate services, and this conviction has only deepened since I began working with climate data to assess climate risk for the bank where I work. Today there is a proliferation of physical climate risk data providers, and most of these services are built on datasets and models originally developed with public funding. Perhaps it's time to admit that climate risk information is a public good, as this article written by Madison Condon (Associate Professor at Boston University School of Law) suggests. Firstly, this is about fairness and climate justice: everyone, wealthy and less wealthy actors, should be able to decide using the same high-quality information. Secondly, market integrity: having open data can improve the quality of the decisions, as happened with the release of transparency platforms in the electricity markets. Final point, accountability and trust: government and public authorities use climate risk information to write regulations and shape our life, for this reason underlying data and methods cannot be black boxes, but transparent and easy to scrutinise. This article suggests to create a National Climate Service, similar to National Weather Services - apparently this idea is around for decades in the US. If you like the topic, this article is a long (63 pages) interesting read. https://lnkd.in/eYMSWKZG