Climate scientists have pushed back against claims by leaders of wealthy nations that their countries' small share of global emissions justifies delaying cuts to pollution. The argument, used by former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, ex-Australian PM Scott Morrison, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Italian PM Giorgia Meloni, overlooks historical emissions, per-capita contributions, and the collective impact of smaller emitters.
The '1%' argument and its proponents
Sunak stated in 2023: 'When our share of global emissions is less than 1%, how can it be right that British citizens are now being told to sacrifice even more than others?' Morrison in 2019 cited Australia's 1.3% to reject claims it was not 'doing our bit'. Merz in July pointed to Germany's 2% while supporting EU climate target loopholes, and Meloni flagged the EU's 6% share. Tony Blair, former UK PM, used the UK's 1% to urge abandoning clean economy targets.
These claims often appear alongside the vast emissions of the US, China, and India, which together produce just over half of global carbon pollution. However, climate scientists argue the framing is misleading.
Why the argument fails
Prof Piers Forster, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds, said: 'These leaders wouldn't like it if the top 1% of their wealthiest citizens didn't pay their taxes, so the argument is fallacious and simply buck-passing. Future warming is driven by future emissions, so every tonne of carbon dioxide that a country or citizen can avoid emitting will improve temperature and heatwave outcomes for generations.'
While the US, China, and India are the only countries individually responsible for more than 5% of 2024 fossil fuel CO2, the remaining 194 countries together account for just under half of annual emissions. Small-emitting nations collectively contribute 32% of global emissions, according to analysis.
Historical and per-capita responsibility
European countries have contributed a disproportionate amount to historical emissions, the metric most relevant for global heating. Per person, they have emitted far more than the global average. Progress in cleaning their economies is only now bringing annual emissions close to the global average.
Dr Ella Gilbert, a climate scientist and board member of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said: 'The climate crisis is a global problem and every country should be acting to reduce emissions and build a greener global economy, especially those with the largest historical responsibility, like the UK. The climate doesn't care where carbon comes from – whether from multiple countries responsible for smaller proportions of emissions, or China.'
Spread of the narrative in media and politics
Analysis by the ECIU, shared exclusively with the Guardian, found 200 examples of such claims in national newspapers across 27 countries responsible for less than 2% of global CO2 emissions last year. For instance, a March 2025 editorial in the British newspaper the Times stated: 'Climate change is clearly a problem, yet Britain, which contributes around 1% of global emissions, can do little to stop it.'
A YouGov poll for the ECIU in April found one in four Britons think countries emitting less than 1% should stop trying to reduce emissions. Among Reform UK voters, half held that view. Party leader Nigel Farage told the BBC last year it was 'absolutely mindless' for a country producing less than 1% of global CO2 to 'beggar itself'.
Impact and the path forward
Gilbert stressed: 'The UK may account for just 1% of current global emissions, but we're responsible for 100% of our own emissions, and we have the opportunity to show global leadership by bringing them down.' The science is clear that curbing emissions to net zero is the only way to restore the climate and avoid dangerous tipping points, she added.
