Carbon inequality: why Pakistan takes the heat

The climate debate worldwide is framed as if the environmental hazard is a shared problem with shared responsibility. The reality, however, is totally different. Carbon emissions are unequal, and climate damage falls unequally. That mismatch, carbon inequality, has silently become one of the biggest blind spots in global climate governance. And countries like Pakistan, which contribute very little to the problem, keep paying an enormous price in disasters, fiscal stress and lost growth.

Begin with what the figures are portraying. UNEP's Emissions Gap Report 2024 estimates that under current policies, global GHG emissions in 2030 remain around 57 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e), leaving an "around 1.5 degrees" gap of roughly 24 GtCO2e. Simply speaking, the report estimates that the world plans to emit nearly twice as much pollution in 2030, leaving a massive emissions gap that vulnerable countries will pay for.

Now overlay inequality. The World Inequality data shows that the top 10% of the global population is responsible for close to half of all emissions, a surprising fact that raises concerns for fairness and policy design. If we frame climate action only as "countries versus countries", we miss a large part of the problem: emissions are increasingly driven by high-consumption lifestyles and capital ownership at the top, even in lower-emitting nations.

This is where the argument becomes uncomfortable for the world's decision-makers. Research summarised by the Global Inequality Project highlights that, measured through emissions associated with private capital ownership, the richest 1% accounts for 41% of these emissions, and the richest 10% for 77%. In other words, climate responsibility is not only about what people consume, but it's also about what the wealthy own, finance, and choose to produce.

Meanwhile, the carbon budget is not infinite. The same Global Inequality analysis reported the scale of budget depletion, with the richest 1% already using their fair share of the 1.5 degrees budget multiple times over. More surprisingly, according to Oxfam's press release, this elite group exhausts its entire annual share of the 1.5 degrees compatible carbon budget for 2026 in just over ten days, leaving the rest of the world to absorb the consequences.

These numbers matter because they reveal a political truth: the remaining atmospheric space is being taken disproportionately by the wealthiest countries, yet the costs are being socialised onto vulnerable countries and marginalised communities.

Pakistan's case should be read through the lens of this inequality frame. Pakistan's updated NDC reported that the country contributes <1% to global GHG emissions, yet remains highly vulnerable to climate impacts. Other datasets put Pakistan's fossil CO2 "global share" around 0.5%. Despite methodological differences, the conclusion shows that Pakistan is not a major driver of the crisis.

Yet the economic exposure is severe. Pakistan's official post-disaster assessment of the 2022 floods estimated $14.9 billion in damages and $15.2 billion in GDP losses, before even counting wider long-run damaging effects on industry, HDI, health and investor confidence. This is precisely the injustice of carbon inequality: the fiscal burden of adaptation and recovery crowds out development spending, forces more borrowing and deepens vulnerability, thereby creating a feedback loop in which climate shocks become macroeconomic shocks.

The current global climate framework is built around national targets (NDCs) and aggregate mitigation pathways. Though that structure is necessary, it is incomplete. It underweights three realities. One, within-country inequality now drives a major share of global emissions inequality, meaning policies that ignore consumption and wealth concentration leave mitigation power untapped. Two, loss-and-damage is not charity; it is risk transfer in a world where the benefits of carbon-intensive growth were historically and presently captured disproportionately. Three, trade is becoming climate-conditioned, for example, carbon border measures and supply-chain disclosure, and low-emitter countries can still be penalised unless they build credible measurement and transition strategies.

Now, what can we do in this situation?

Pakistan has already raised the climate justice argument internationally in 2022. The next step is to make it more prominent and quantifiable. I suggest four policy matters that help.

First, lead with "Carbon Inequality Diplomacy". We should push the inequity framing in forums where it can build alliances, for instance, the UNFCCC process, the Loss and Damage Fund governance discussions, and aligned groupings with climate-vulnerable country blocs. Our message is very simple: the world's mitigation failure and the concentration of emissions at the top together create a fairness problem that current finance flows do not match.

Second, turn vulnerability into bankable projects. Pakistan should package flood resilience, early-warning systems, climate-smart agriculture and urban drainage into investable programmes with transparent monitoring.

Third, build a "trust layer" for exports in a climate-conditioned trade world. As climate regulation enters trade with product-level reporting. Pakistan should expand MRV (measurement, reporting, verification) capacity across energy, textiles, agriculture and logistics. This is not only a climate policy but also an export competitiveness policy.

Fourth, make carbon inequality visible at home as well. A credible international case is stronger when domestic policy shows seriousness. We should showcase targeted energy efficiency, cleaner urban transport, and reforms that reduce wasteful elite consumption while protecting the poor. The point is not punitive politics; it is aligning Pakistan's development with resilience and global market access.

Carbon inequality is uncomfortable because it implies that solving climate change is not just about changing technologies; it is about changing power and incentives. If the world keeps treating carbon inequality as an activist slogan rather than a governance variable, low-emitter countries like Pakistan will keep financing the climate crisis twice, first through disasters, then through debt.