In our latest critical reflexion on typical causes for delaying, downgrading, or rejecting climate change action, we look into “Whataboutism”, a very common argument which falls under the category of redirect responsibility fallacies.
This argument is one of the most common in the discussion about climate protection measures. It also makes sense – in comparison with large economies and populous countries, many people feel that it is not nearly enough for them to make an effort as long as others do not. This comparison is misleading, however, because it ultimately tempts everyone to do nothing as long as they feel that others have to do more. In the end, though, everyone has to pay the price for this.
Moreover, the argument does not even stand up to closer scrutiny. It is not the footprint of a country that is relevant, but the per capita emissions of the country. As long as the per capita emissions in a country are far above those of the global average, there is not only a high potential for reduction, but also a high obligation towards countries with lower per capita emissions to change this disparity. For too long, the world’s more affluent countries have lived beyond their means. All the more so since many of the emissions in the world’s poorer countries only result from the fact that the wealthy countries produce there more cheaply.
KNOWING is not about balancing the commitments of different regions against each other, but about helping all regions to develop effective and feasible climate change mitigation pathways that enable new quality of life through adaptation to the expected changes. This is the only way to ensure that this goal can be achieved.
