The Climate Change Liability Coefficient: An Earthrise Accord Framework for Climate Accountability and Reparations

Conceptual and Technical Basis of the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC)

By Eric W. Anders, Ph.D., Psy.D.

The Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC) is a proposed metric of climate accountability I’ve developed as part of the Earthrise Accord initiative. It’s designed to distill an actor’s responsibility for climate harm into a single, calculable score. The CCLC would integrate a range of variables—including historical greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel extraction volume, economic capacity to pay, and documented obstruction of climate action—to produce a composite index of culpability. In plain terms, it’s a way of assigning each major climate criminal—whether a state, a fossil fuel corporation, or even individual executives—a proportionate share of the global climate reparations burden. Crucially, it weights not just the scale of emissions and extraction, but the degree of bad-faith delay, disinformation, and sabotage. The goal is to shift the conversation from vague responsibility to enforceable liability—an evidentiary basis for justice, restitution, and repair.

Historical Emissions: At the heart of the CCLC is a simple but foundational truth: past emissions matter. The total volume of greenhouse gases an actor has released—or enabled through extraction or financing—forms a core pillar of climate accountability. This aligns with the longstanding “polluter pays” principle and the broader climate justice framework of historical responsibility. We’re not lacking in data. Landmark work by Richard Heede and the Climate Accountability Institute has traced nearly two-thirds of all industrial carbon emissions since the dawn of the fossil fuel era to just 90 entities—primarily oil, gas, coal, and cement producers. The 2017 Carbon Majors report similarly found that a mere 100 fossil fuel producers are responsible for roughly 71% of global industrial GHG emissions since 1988. These aren’t vague allegations; they’re assignable percentages—receipts, so to speak.

(See "A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change," The Guardian, July 10, 2017.)

In calculating the CCLC, these historical emissions would be quantified and weighted accordingly. Actors with outsize cumulative contributions—like the United States, which accounted for an estimated 40% of excess atmospheric CO₂ as of 2015, or corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Aramco—would justly carry a higher liability burden. Historical emissions serve as the empirical anchor of the CCLC: a measurable record of harm inflicted on the climate system. They’re not the whole story, but they are the non-negotiable baseline.

Fossil Fuel Extraction: In addition to emissions from end use, the CCLC factors in fossil fuel production. This highlights supply-side responsibility—that is, accountability for extracting and selling the coal, oil, and gas that ultimately drive climate change. Many of the so-called “Carbon Major” entities are not just emitters but the primary suppliers of fossil carbon: private energy corporations, state-owned enterprises, and, in some cases, entire petrostate economies. Including extraction ensures that those who profited from making fossil fuels available are held liable for the resulting damage.

This framework also captures cases that conventional emissions accounting tends to obscure—such as oil-exporting states like Saudi Arabia or Norway, whose territorial emissions may appear modest, but whose exported fuels have generated massive downstream emissions elsewhere. Both countries have amassed extraordinary national wealth through fossil fuel extraction. Saudi Arabia has earned an estimated $9.5 trillion in cumulative oil revenues since the inception of its oil industry, fueling its economy and geopolitical influence. Norway, with a population of just 5.5 million, has generated over $1.5 trillion in cumulative oil and gas revenues, building the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, now valued at approximately $1.7 trillion. This translates to over $325,000 per Norwegian citizen. By incorporating extraction volumes—barrels of oil, tons of coal, cubic meters of natural gas—the CCLC recognizes that providing the fuel is no less culpable than burning it. Extraction is the starting point of the carbon chain; accountability must begin there too. Wikipedia

Importantly, this is not a speculative model. The Carbon Majors Database, developed by the Climate Accountability Institute, compiles historical fossil fuel production data dating back to the mid-19th century. It enables researchers and policymakers to quantify each actor’s contribution to global extraction and, by extension, to cumulative emissions. According to their findings, just 25 corporate and state entities are responsible for over half of all industrial fossil fuel emissions since 1988. Saudi Aramco alone, as the world’s largest oil producer, accounts for a staggering portion of that total.

Within the LC framework, these extraction figures would translate directly into high liability scores. The principle is straightforward: if you supplied the carbon, you share responsibility for what it did—and what it is doing—to the climate system.

Economic Capacity: The CCLC also incorporates a crucial fairness factor: the economic capacity of each climate actor—essentially, their financial strength and ability to pay. This aligns closely with a well-established principle from international climate negotiations known as common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC). Put plainly, those who have greater financial resources should shoulder a proportionately larger share of the reparations burden.

India, for example, is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but its economic resources remain relatively modest when compared to wealthier countries like the United States or Germany. India's GDP per capita is roughly $2,600, compared to over $70,000 for the United States and nearly $50,000 for Germany. Given its ongoing struggle with poverty, infrastructure deficits, and the urgent need for economic development, India’s LC would be scaled downward. This adjustment recognizes that, despite its substantial emissions, India has limited economic capacity to address climate harm without risking severe hardship to its population.

In practice, this means wealthy, high-emitting countries like the United States or Germany—or highly profitable fossil fuel corporations—would carry a heavier share of climate liability. ExxonMobil, for example, earned roughly $775 billion in cumulative net profits from 1990 through 2022, clearly demonstrating ample financial capacity to contribute significantly to climate reparations. Conversely, economically smaller or financially constrained actors would have their LC adjusted downward, recognizing their limited ability to pay without causing undue hardship.

Technically, economic capacity could be factored into the CCLC by scaling an entity’s liability according to national GDP (for states) or market capitalization and annual profit (for corporations). Alternatively, well-established benchmarks like the Responsibility and Capability Index—already in use by climate equity frameworks—could be integrated as standardized metrics.

Incorporating economic capacity ensures that the CCLC captures not only the degree of harm caused but also realistically assesses each actor’s capability to remedy that harm. The goal is straightforward fairness: wealthier polluters must contribute their fair share, consistent with both their historical responsibility and their available resources. This approach mirrors emerging international expectations that high-GDP nations and profitable corporations bear a greater responsibility for funding climate adaptation and loss-and-damage efforts in the most vulnerable regions.

Deliberate Obstruction and Deception: What truly distinguishes the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC) from traditional carbon accounting methods is its inclusion of a culpability multiplier for bad-faith actions—specifically, decades of climate denial, misinformation campaigns, and deliberate obstruction of climate solutions. I argue that entities which not only contributed significantly to emissions but also knowingly impeded effective climate action should face increased liability.

This culpability component is informed by a substantial and growing body of evidence demonstrating that major fossil fuel corporations actively orchestrated disinformation despite clear internal knowledge of climate science. For instance, ExxonMobil’s own scientists accurately projected global warming trends as early as the 1970s, correctly predicting approximately 0.2°C of warming per decade. Yet ExxonMobil’s executives publicly denied or downplayed climate risks for decades afterward. Similarly, fossil fuel corporations collectively have spent enormous sums on lobbying and propaganda to sow doubt and delay policy action. According to one recent analysis by InfluenceMap, just five major oil companies spent roughly $115 million annually on obstructive climate lobbying in recent years.

Moreover, Big Oil companies have played a direct role in funding and perpetuating misinformation campaigns specifically targeting nuclear energy—one of the few scalable, carbon-free energy sources capable of substantially replacing fossil fuels. By actively financing and supporting anti-nuclear rhetoric, fossil fuel interests have systematically undermined nuclear realism, fostering unfounded public fears about nuclear safety and reliability. This strategic deception has not only maintained global dependence on fossil fuels but significantly delayed the clean energy transition.

Legacy environmentalist groups should also receive their own CCLC scores, reflecting their culpability for decades-long misinformation campaigns against nuclear power. These anti-nuclear campaigns—sometimes explicitly funded or supported by fossil fuel interests—have further impeded the global energy transition by promoting inaccurate narratives about nuclear risks and sustainability. Additionally, petrostates like Norway and subnational entities such as British Columbia in Canada should see increases in their CCLC scores due to their explicit anti-nuclear policies. By banning nuclear power, these governments perpetuate nuclear fantasies—groundless narratives about safety risks and unsustainability—that directly undermine nuclear realism, thereby prolonging reliance on fossil fuels and obstructing essential climate solutions.

(See The Biggest Fossil Fuel Lie: How Anti-Nuclear Misinformation Doomed the Climate for more on how the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate anti-nuclear campaigns have systematically delayed clean-energy adoption, prolonging fossil fuel dependence and significantly worsening the climate crisis.)

As I've argued elsewhere, the fossil fuel industry’s orchestrated campaigns of climate denial, misinformation, and anti-clean-energy propaganda—including targeted smear campaigns against nuclear power—have collectively fostered a systemic and ideological paralysis. This broader influence of inaction has entrenched public confusion, undermined policy initiatives, and significantly slowed the adoption of viable climate solutions. Thus, the CCLC’s obstruction factor serves as a punitive multiplier: it increases liability for those who clearly understood the risks yet chose to deliberately mislead the public, obstruct meaningful climate action, and delay the urgently needed energy transition.

(See California v. Big Oil Through an Earthrise Accord Lens for an analysis of how California’s landmark lawsuit could have been strengthened by explicitly addressing both major fossil fuel misinformation campaigns—climate denial and anti-nuclear propaganda—and by including not only Big Oil companies but also petrostates. Credible evidence indicates that petrostates have funded and perpetuated climate disinformation campaigns to manipulate public opinion and policy discourse (Countering Fossil-Fuelled Climate Disinformation to Save Democracy, Digital Policy Hub Working Paper). The analysis further argues that California should have pursued this litigation at the International Criminal Court (ICC), avoiding compromised U.S. courts and recognizing climate change as a global crisis requiring international legal remedies.)

Formula and Calculation: While I have outlined the core components of the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC) conceptually, the exact formula and calculation would, in practice, be developed by climate scientists, economists, and legal experts. One possible approach is a composite index structured along these lines:

Formula Components Explained:

• EiE_iEi​: Entity i’s cumulative historical greenhouse gas emissions.

• FiF_iFi​: Entity i’s cumulative fossil fuel extraction volumes (oil, coal, natural gas).

• CiC_iCi​: Normalized indicator of economic capacity (ability to pay).

• OiO_iOi​: Obstruction score capturing deliberate misinformation and policy obstruction efforts.

• w1,w2,w3,w4w_1, w_2, w_3, w_4w1​,w2​,w3​,w4​: Weighting coefficients assigned by experts, balancing each component's significance in the overall score.

  
  

Example Weight Distribution:

• Historical emissions and fossil fuel extraction: approximately 50% (combined)

• Economic capacity: approximately 20%

• Deliberate obstruction and misinformation: approximately 30%

Alternative calculation methods might employ multiplicative approaches or tiered attribution systems to differentiate clearly among levels or types of responsibility.

The end goal of the CCLC is a clearly defined numerical value or percentage, indicating each entity’s share of global climate responsibility—and thus the proportion of reparations they owe. For instance, if the CCLC for all entities sums to 1 (or 100%), an entity assigned a CCLC of 0.10 would bear responsibility for 10% of the global climate reparations bill. If international negotiations determined, hypothetically, that $1 trillion annually is needed for global climate damages and adaptation costs, an entity with a CCLC of 0.10 would, in theory, owe $100 billion each year.

This approach builds upon established methodologies already employed in climate policy and burden-sharing analyses. Researchers have long debated formulas that integrate historical responsibility and economic capacity, such as the Responsibility and Capability Index. The CCLC extends these frameworks by explicitly adding a culpability component. It operationalizes what climate justice advocates have argued for decades: those who caused, perpetuated, and deliberately obstructed meaningful climate action—and who have the financial resources to address the damage—should shoulder the greatest responsibility.

(See Climate Equity Reference Project for more on their data-driven framework, which provides standardized methods and metrics—such as the Responsibility and Capability Index—for evaluating fair national contributions toward global climate action based on historical emissions and economic capacity.)

In short, the CCLC’s technical structure combines hard quantitative data (emissions, extraction, economic metrics) with qualitative assessments of deliberate malfeasance, creating a robust, transparent index that could underpin comprehensive international climate justice and reparations frameworks.

Precedents, Movements, and Innovations Supporting the CCLC Approach

The concept of holding major polluters financially accountable for climate damage is increasingly grounded in established legal precedents, scientific methodologies, and emerging international norms. Several global movements, innovations, and court cases provide strong support for implementing a Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC):

Attribution Science & the Carbon Majors

Advances in attribution science have enabled clear quantification of individual actors’ contributions to climate change. The Carbon Majors Database, initiated by CDP and the Climate Accountability Institute, meticulously documents emissions from major fossil fuel and cement producers. Landmark studies, such as Heede (2014) and Ekwurzel et al. (2017), have identified that just 90 entities are responsible for 63% of cumulative CO₂ emissions, with updated data indicating that only 57 producers accounted for over 80% of fossil fuel and cement emissions in recent decades.

(See Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010 by Richard Heede (2014), which quantifies emissions from major producers responsible for 63% of historical industrial emissions; and The rise in global atmospheric CO₂, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers by Brenda Ekwurzel et al. (2017), linking these emissions directly to global temperature rise and sea-level increases.)

Attribution science’s practical implications are becoming increasingly evident in global courtrooms. In the landmark German climate litigation case, Lliuya v. RWE AG, Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya successfully argued that the German utility giant RWE should bear a share of the costs for flood protection measures in his hometown of Huaraz, proportional to RWE’s historical emissions. Originally calculated at approximately 0.47%, RWE’s share was later adjusted to around 0.38% by 2023. The case notably demonstrates how scientific attribution can precisely apportion climate liability in legal contexts.

(See Lliuya v. RWE AG on Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s Global Climate Change Litigation Database, which provides comprehensive documentation and analysis of significant international climate lawsuits. This groundbreaking transnational litigation sets an important precedent, clearly illustrating the potential to hold major emitters accountable for climate damages using rigorous, science-based apportionment methods.)

Climate Litigation Successes

Innovative climate litigation is rapidly reshaping legal landscapes worldwide, establishing important precedents for holding governments and major corporations accountable for their role in causing and perpetuating climate harm. Several key cases illustrate this global trend, demonstrating judicial openness to principles closely aligned with the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC).

New Zealand: Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd (2020–2024)

In this landmark case, Mike Smith, a prominent Māori leader, initiated a groundbreaking lawsuit against major New Zealand emitters—including dairy giant Fonterra, energy companies, and others—for their contributions to climate change. Smith’s lawsuit was initially dismissed by lower courts; however, in a significant decision in 2024, the Supreme Court of New Zealand allowed the claims to proceed, recognizing the possibility of a novel "climate system damage" tort. This ruling explicitly acknowledged the potential existence of a legal duty of care owed by major emitters to communities affected by climate change. The case represents one of the most significant breakthroughs in climate litigation under common law jurisdictions, opening new legal pathways for future plaintiffs seeking accountability from high-emitting corporations.

• Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd – Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University

• (Detailed case documents, timeline, and analysis provided by Columbia University's authoritative Global Climate Change Litigation database.)

  
  

Netherlands: Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc (2021–2024)

In a groundbreaking judgment delivered by the District Court of The Hague in 2021, Shell was ordered to reduce its global CO₂ emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030. The court based this ruling on human rights obligations, arguing that Shell held direct corporate responsibility for preventing significant climate harm. This was the first time a court mandated that a corporation must meet specific emission-reduction targets aligned with the Paris Agreement. Although Shell appealed successfully in 2024, overturning the original decision, the initial ruling marked a critical turning point, clearly establishing that courts can hold major corporations legally responsible for climate damages based on human rights frameworks.

• Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc – Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University

• (Detailed case documents, timeline, and analysis provided by Columbia University's authoritative Global Climate Change Litigation database.)

United States: People of the State of California v. Big Oil (2023)

California’s ambitious 2023 lawsuit represents a major escalation in climate accountability efforts within the United States. The state directly accused leading global fossil fuel companies—including ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips—of engaging in an extensive and systematic campaign of climate disinformation. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that these companies deliberately concealed evidence of fossil fuels' detrimental effects, misleading both policymakers and the public for decades. California seeks substantial compensation from these companies to cover adaptation, mitigation, and resilience efforts required to protect residents from escalating climate harms. The lawsuit also calls for establishing a dedicated fund—financed by the defendants—to directly address climate-related damages, adaptation, and public education efforts aimed at countering disinformation.

• People of the State of California v. Big Oil – Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, California(Official announcement, detailed allegations, and legal strategies from the Governor's Office of California.)

• California sues oil giants, alleging decades of deception – AP News(AP News coverage and additional context of California’s climate lawsuit against Big Oil.)

• California v. Big Oil Through an Earthrise Accord Lens – Earthrise Accord(An Earthrise Accord analysis highlighting how California’s case could be strengthened by explicitly addressing Big Oil’s dual misinformation campaigns—climate denial and anti-nuclear propaganda—and advocating for broader international accountability.)

Additional Resources and Case Databases

These resources represent critical support for judicial efforts to incorporate scientific attribution and moral culpability into climate litigation, aligning directly with the principles of the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC).

• Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University – The Sabin Center provides comprehensive, searchable databases of global and U.S. climate litigation, including detailed case documents, legal analyses, and strategic insights. It serves as an authoritative hub for legal professionals, researchers, policymakers, and advocates seeking to advance climate accountability worldwide.

• Center for Climate Integrity – A U.S.-based organization focused on holding fossil fuel companies accountable for climate misinformation and associated public costs. The Center actively tracks and supports climate litigation, offering extensive research, analysis, and resources aimed at strengthening legal and public efforts against climate deception.

• Human Rights Law Centre – An Australian organization documenting and advocating for climate litigation grounded in human rights law. They emphasize the responsibility of governments and corporations to protect vulnerable populations from climate impacts, providing valuable legal analyses and supporting global accountability initiatives.

These groundbreaking cases and robust resources collectively reinforce and expand the legal foundations required for effective global climate accountability. They highlight how courts, legislatures, and advocacy organizations worldwide are increasingly recognizing the critical role of scientific attribution, economic fairness, and moral culpability in addressing climate harm. This evolving legal landscape underscores the urgent need for structured, transparent frameworks—such as the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC)—to clearly quantify each actor's share of responsibility and systematically determine appropriate reparations. By operationalizing these principles into a standardized and enforceable metric, the CCLC can facilitate consistent, equitable, and actionable accountability measures on an international scale, directly advancing climate justice and helping communities secure resources essential for adaptation, mitigation, and resilience in the face of accelerating climate impacts.

National Laws – Climate “Superfunds” and Liability Acts

Legislative efforts in the United States are increasingly reflecting attribution-based accountability, aiming to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for their contributions to climate change. Notably, states like Vermont and New York have enacted pioneering "Climate Superfund" laws, setting significant precedents for climate liability legislation.

Vermont's Climate Superfund Act (2024)

In May 2024, Vermont became the first U.S. state to pass a law requiring fossil fuel companies to pay for a share of climate change damages proportional to their historical emissions. The law mandates that the Vermont State Treasurer, in consultation with the Agency of Natural Resources, calculate the total cost of climate-related damages in the state from 1995 to 2024. Companies responsible for over one billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions during this period, and with sufficient connection to Vermont, will be liable for payments into a fund dedicated to climate adaptation and resilience projects.

New York's Climate Change Superfund Act (2024)

Following Vermont's lead, New York enacted the Climate Change Superfund Act in December 2024. This legislation requires major fossil fuel companies to collectively pay $75 billion over 25 years, starting in 2028, to fund climate adaptation infrastructure across the state. Liability is determined based on each company's share of global greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2018, specifically targeting companies responsible for over one billion tons of emissions. The funds will be utilized to mitigate climate impacts and adapt various infrastructure systems, including roads, transit, water, and sewage systems.

Legal Challenges and Broader Implications

Both Vermont and New York's laws have faced legal challenges from fossil fuel industry groups and a coalition of state attorneys general, arguing that the legislation imposes retroactive liability and may conflict with federal regulations. Despite these challenges, the enactment of these laws signifies a shift towards holding polluters accountable and may inspire similar legislation in other jurisdictions. (AP News)

Vermont Law and Graduate School (VLGS) Resources

Vermont Law and Graduate School (VLGS) has been at the forefront of environmental legal education and advocacy. Their Environmental Advocacy Clinic provides students with hands-on experience in environmental litigation and policy, including work related to climate accountability.

Additionally, the Environmental Law Center at VLGS offers a comprehensive curriculum and hosts events focusing on environmental law and policy, contributing to the broader discourse on climate liability and justice.

These legislative efforts underscore the urgent need for structured frameworks like the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC), which aim to quantify responsibility and reparations clearly and effectively. By operationalizing attribution science into policy, such frameworks can facilitate equitable climate accountability on a global scale.

International Human Rights and Climate Justice Movements

On the international stage, human rights frameworks and global justice movements are increasingly central to climate accountability efforts. Vulnerable nations, indigenous communities, and civil society organizations have amplified demands for clear mechanisms to hold major polluters legally and financially accountable.

Landmark Human Rights Decisions

A critical milestone was the groundbreaking 2019 decision by the Philippines Commission on Human Rights (CHR). After an extensive three-year inquiry, the Commission concluded that major fossil fuel corporations—such as Chevron, Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil—bear significant legal and moral responsibility for climate-driven human rights violations. The Commission found that the climate-related impacts caused by these corporations directly compromised fundamental human rights, including the rights to life, food, water, sanitation, health, and housing.

• Philippines Commission on Human Rights Climate Accountability Inquiry (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre)

Global Advocacy and Loss and Damage Fund

International civil society campaigns, notably "Make Big Polluters Pay", and influential coalitions such as the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) and Vulnerable Twenty (V20) have successfully advocated for robust climate accountability frameworks. These groups argue that wealthy, high-emitting nations and corporations have historical obligations to finance adaptation, recovery, and reparations.

Their advocacy culminated in the historic establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 in Egypt in 2022. This international fund, designed to financially assist vulnerable nations suffering irreversible climate-related losses, is based on principles similar to those underlying the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC)—assigning clear financial responsibilities to historically high-emitting and economically capable entities.

• Loss and Damage Fund Agreement (COP27, United Nations)

Broader Human Rights Frameworks and Climate Justice

Prominent human rights bodies and organizations globally now recognize climate change as a direct human rights crisis, highlighting the need for structured accountability mechanisms. This recognition significantly bolsters legal arguments for reparations and structured financial accountability frameworks like the CCLC, reinforcing moral, legal, and political arguments for holding polluters to account.

• Climate Change and Human Rights – Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

These international developments strongly reinforce the importance of structured mechanisms like the CCLC to systematically quantify responsibility, uphold human rights, and operationalize climate justice globally.

Legal Innovations – Ecocide and International Advisory Opinions

Emerging legal innovations are strengthening global climate accountability frameworks by integrating environmental destruction explicitly into international criminal and advisory mechanisms. These developments significantly reinforce the principles and methodologies underlying the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC).

Ecocide as an International Crime

There is growing momentum to formally recognize "ecocide"—defined as severe, widespread, or deliberate environmental destruction—as an international crime comparable to genocide or crimes against humanity. A prominent international expert panel has developed a draft definition of ecocide, proposing its addition as the fifth crime prosecutable by the International Criminal Court (ICC) through an amendment to the Rome Statute. This movement has gained substantial international backing, notably from climate-vulnerable states such as Vanuatu, Samoa, the Maldives, and several European countries.

Formal recognition of ecocide could enable international prosecution of major corporations and state actors responsible for deliberately exacerbating environmental harm, including significant contributions to climate change. The Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC) could serve as an essential evidentiary framework within such prosecutions, providing a scientifically rigorous basis for quantifying entities' responsibilities for ecological damage.

• Stop Ecocide International – Defining Ecocide (Official Definition and Advocacy)

International Advisory Opinions

In addition to efforts around ecocide, recent landmark advisory opinions from international courts and tribunals are significantly reinforcing state obligations to prevent and address climate harm.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a historic resolution, requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ on states’ legal obligations regarding climate change, including their responsibilities to prevent and mitigate climate damage, and to compensate for climate-related harm. Led by small island states vulnerable to sea-level rise and extreme weather, this advisory opinion seeks to clarify how principles of international law—particularly obligations under human rights and environmental law—apply directly to climate change.

• UN News: ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Obligations

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)

Concurrently, in 2023, ITLOS delivered a groundbreaking advisory opinion, affirming unequivocally that states have clear obligations to prevent, reduce, and control marine environmental damage caused by climate change. This ruling highlights the importance of legally quantifying and assigning responsibility for climate-induced environmental harm, further validating approaches like the CCLC methodology.

• ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and Marine Protection

These legal innovations—recognizing ecocide as an international crime and leveraging landmark advisory opinions—are integral to shaping an evolving global legal paradigm. They create authoritative frameworks for clearly quantifying climate responsibilities and accountability, further supporting structured methodologies such as the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC).

Broader Influence of Misinformation and Accountability

Systematic misinformation campaigns—often funded and promoted by fossil fuel corporations and petrostates—have had profound and lasting impacts on global climate action. These campaigns have created widespread ideological confusion, policy stagnation, and significant delays in transitioning to effective, scalable climate solutions.

Climate Misinformation and Ideological Paralysis

Extensive research highlights how major fossil fuel companies and petrostates have strategically funded and perpetuated misinformation to undermine public understanding of climate science. This misinformation has fueled ideological paralysis, obstructed policy development, and significantly delayed global climate responses.

• Countering Fossil-Fuelled Climate Disinformation to Save Democracy – Digital Policy Hub Working Paper (Centre for International Governance Innovation)—An authoritative analysis detailing how fossil fuel interests systematically manipulate climate discourse, obstructing effective policy solutions and democratic governance.

Anti-Nuclear Campaigns and Climate Accountability

Legacy environmentalist organizations and certain governments, such as Norway and subnational jurisdictions like British Columbia, Canada, have perpetuated significant misinformation campaigns against nuclear energy. These anti-nuclear campaigns have created unwarranted fears regarding safety, hindering acceptance of nuclear energy—one of the most reliable, scalable, and carbon-free energy sources available. These entities, therefore, should receive increased CCLC scores for contributing directly to fossil-fuel reliance through misinformation and explicit anti-nuclear policies.

• The Biggest Fossil Fuel Lie: How Anti-Nuclear Misinformation Doomed the Climate – Earthrise Accord—An in-depth analysis outlining how misinformation campaigns against nuclear energy have significantly delayed global climate action, ensuring continued fossil fuel dependence and intensifying the climate crisis.

Conclusion: Toward Comprehensive Climate Accountability

The convergence of climate attribution science, groundbreaking legal precedents, legislative frameworks, and international advocacy underscores the critical need for systematic and measurable climate accountability. The Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC) emerges naturally from these developments as a coherent, transparent, and enforceable metric.

Attribution research provides precise data on historical emissions, extraction, and economic capacity. Courts and legislatures worldwide increasingly recognize and apply quantifiable frameworks of responsibility. Simultaneously, international norms and legal innovations (such as ecocide recognition and advisory opinions) are rapidly evolving toward clear accountability standards. Thus, the CCLC synthesizes these diverse strands—scientific, legal, ethical, and policy-driven—into an integrated global metric, enabling consistent and just climate reparations and advancing meaningful climate justice internationally.

Practical and Legal Uses of the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC) in International and Domestic Contexts

If implemented, the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC) could become a versatile tool deployed in multiple arenas—from courtrooms to U.N. climate summits—to advance climate justice. Below, I explore how the CCLC might be utilized in practice:

1. Courts and Litigation

The most immediate application of the CCLC would be in legal cases aimed at holding polluters accountable. Plaintiffs (nations, cities, or groups of affected individuals) could use CCLC calculations to precisely apportion liability among multiple defendants. This is analogous to methods currently employed in asbestos or tobacco litigation.

For instance, if a low-lying nation such as the Maldives sues major fossil fuel companies, expert analyses utilizing the CCLC could determine proportional responsibility: Company A (CCLC = 0.20), Company B (CCLC = 0.15), Company C (CCLC = 0.05), and so forth. Courts could then assign damages accordingly. The landmark Lliuya v. RWE case provides precedent, with the plaintiff seeking 0.47% from RWE based on emissions attribution.

Beyond standard damages, the CCLC could also justify punitive fines and enhanced penalties reflecting deliberate obstruction or deception. The result would be a scientifically grounded, legally defensible quantification of each entity’s climate-related liability, strengthening causal evidence and judicial outcomes.

Moreover, in human rights litigation before international or regional courts, the CCLC could systematically demonstrate breaches of duty by corporations or governments, quantifying their harmful contributions precisely. Ultimately, standardized CCLC metrics could streamline global climate litigation, enabling comprehensive settlements akin to the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

2. International Climate Negotiations (COP and Treaties)

The CCLC could significantly enhance diplomatic processes related to climate finance and reparations, particularly within the Loss and Damage framework under the UNFCCC. Instead of voluntary contributions, the CCLC would serve as the basis for mandatory financial obligations.

Nations’ contributions to the Loss and Damage Fund, Green Climate Fund, or technology transfers could be proportionally calculated using a formula considering historical emissions, GDP, and roles in obstructing climate action. This approach would objectively determine contributions, placing greater financial obligations on wealthier, high-emission countries (e.g., the United States), and minimal obligations on nations with negligible emissions histories.

Integrating CCLC into international treaties, such as a proposed "Earthrise Accord," would convert abstract justice principles into actionable, enforceable commitments, creating a legal structure that obliges major emitters to pay climate reparations and adhere to stringent emissions reduction schedules.

3. Advocacy and Public Discourse

The CCLC would become an influential advocacy tool, empowering activists, researchers, and investors with clear, communicable metrics. Annual "Climate Liability Index" reports, publicly ranking major polluters (e.g., ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, the United States, China), could galvanize public support and media attention around quantified climate culpability.

Activists could leverage these metrics in public campaigns, demanding climate reparations or policy interventions based on calculated liabilities. Shareholder resolutions might also employ CCLC scores to compel corporations to disclose liabilities transparently and to reserve funds for future climate-related costs, enhancing corporate accountability.

Furthermore, integrating the CCLC into ESG (environmental, social, governance) criteria could provide investors with critical insights into climate risk, linking financial valuation to climate responsibility explicitly.

4. Reparations and Adaptation Schemes

CCLC calculations could underpin reparations mechanisms, guiding both collection and distribution of funds. Polluters, determined by their CCLC, would contribute proportionally to international or national climate compensation funds, with disbursements prioritizing vulnerable, low-emission countries.

My "Clean Energy Reparations" concept illustrates this further: reparations would finance not only adaptation infrastructure (such as sea walls) but also clean, sovereign energy systems for impacted communities. Wealthy, high-CCLC states might be mandated to fund substantial clean energy installations or technology transfers in victim nations.

In domestic contexts, settlement funds from major polluters would be apportioned via the CCLC to finance regional climate resilience projects, linking reparations directly to identifiable climate harm. Insurance schemes or disaster relief efforts might also reclaim costs from high-CCLC entities, transforming climate reparations into structured, justice-oriented disbursements.

5. Criminal Accountability Integration

Though more theoretical currently, the CCLC could inform future climate-related criminal prosecutions (e.g., ecocide or climate crimes against humanity). Should international tribunals or domestic courts prosecute corporate executives or officials, the CCLC could quantify restitution payments or remedial actions.

Under Earthrise Accord's vision, sentences for climate crimes might not solely rely on incarceration but instead mandate funding restorative climate projects proportionate to an entity’s CCLC. This mechanism could profoundly strengthen the deterrent effect of climate accountability, embedding quantified responsibility within criminal justice frameworks.

Implementation and Credibility

For effective implementation, the CCLC would require credible, authoritative governance—likely through a UN-affiliated scientific body or an expanded IPCC mandate—to ensure transparent, rigorous, and consistent calculation methodologies. Regularly published updates, similar to established indices (GDP, Human Development Index), would standardize the CCLC, facilitating global acceptance and application.

Ultimately, the CCLC transforms climate justice from abstract arguments into tangible, actionable commitments, quantifiably linking historical and ongoing harms to specific financial and moral obligations. Its adoption could mark a pivotal step toward genuine accountability, fairness, and reparative climate action globally.

Maldives vs. Big Oil – A Case Study for CCLC-Driven Reparations

To illustrate vividly how the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC) could function on the ground, consider the critical situation facing the Republic of Maldives—and how this framework might compel major polluters to provide urgently needed reparations. The Maldives, a low-lying island nation with over 80% of its land below one meter above sea level, is a frontline casualty of climate collapse. Even modest warming scenarios predict significant territorial loss by century's end. The Maldives already suffers existential threats: coastal erosion, coral reef bleaching, groundwater salination, and intensified storm surges. This represents not only physical devastation but a profound cultural desecration—a national identity intimately tied to a homeland at risk of obliteration.

Yet, the Maldives contributes almost nothing to global emissions. Its carbon footprint is negligible, making it a textbook example of climate injustice. Earthrise Accord's position is unequivocal: responsibility for saving the Maldives or compensating for its potential loss falls squarely on major emitters—those who knowingly profited from fossil fuels and obstructed climate action. Here is how the CCLC could concretely quantify and enforce this accountability:

Figure: Satellite imagery of Malé (bottom left) and Hulhumalé (upper right), the artificial island raised as a critical adaptation measure. Such adaptations are essential yet extraordinarily costly (up to $8.8 billion), several times the Maldives' GDP, underscoring the urgency and scale of reparative action.

1. Slowing Sea-Level Rise – Global Interventions

The only permanent solution for nations like the Maldives is halting or significantly slowing global warming. However, even with rapid decarbonization, existing emissions have locked in harmful impacts. Extraordinary measures—like carefully governed geoengineering—may thus become necessary. Through the CCLC framework, high-liability nations and companies would fund and implement global climate stabilization initiatives. For example, an international tribunal (like the ICC) could mandate that ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, or major emitting nations like the U.S. and China, proportionate to their CCLCs, finance targeted interventions such as marine cloud brightening or atmospheric aerosol injection.

While international law complexities persist regarding geoengineering, the establishment of an internationally supervised Climate Restoration Fund could provide legal clarity. The Maldives could invoke its existential threat to compel climate offenders, through court-enforced reparations, to contribute substantial funds toward emergency planetary cooling measures. This would redefine climate justice beyond local adaptation to global protection—an ethical imperative that places financial responsibility precisely on those who profited from "murdering the future," ensuring that polluters fund measures essential for the survival of vulnerable nations.

2. Energy Reparations – Transformative Clean Energy Infrastructure

A core tenet of Earthrise Accord's climate justice initiative is Clean Energy Reparations—ensuring that victims of climate harm directly benefit from sustainable energy transitions funded by polluters. The Maldives, heavily dependent on costly diesel generators, exemplifies how transformative this approach could be. A CCLC-based court judgment would compel high-liability corporations, such as ExxonMobil or Shell, to finance the transition of the Maldives' energy infrastructure to solar, wind, battery storage, and advanced nuclear technologies, securing clean, resilient, and affordable electricity.

Such reparations achieve multiple justice dimensions simultaneously: reducing economic dependency on imported fossil fuels, powering vital adaptation infrastructure (e.g., desalination plants), and restoring moral accountability by converting the consequences of corporate wrongdoing into positive infrastructure projects. Under this framework, if comprehensive clean-energy infrastructure for the Maldives costs around $2 billion, an entity with a CCLC of 0.10 (10%) would contribute $200 million. Reparations would not merely supply technology but also build local capacity through training Maldivians in renewable energy jobs and fostering local ownership of infrastructure, reinforcing long-term resilience and dignity—principles central to Earthrise Accord’s reparative philosophy.

3. Sea-Inundation Mitigation – Robust Adaptation Infrastructure

Despite current adaptation projects like Malé's seawalls and the elevated island Hulhumalé, the Maldives faces prohibitively expensive infrastructure needs (estimated up to $8.8 billion, compared to an annual GDP around $5 billion). Without substantial external assistance, comprehensive adaptation remains impossible. The CCLC framework addresses this injustice head-on: major fossil fuel emitters identified by their liability scores must finance Maldives’ protective infrastructure—seawalls, elevated land reclamation, storm surge barriers, and reinforced infrastructure.

In practical terms, the Maldives could seek reparations at the ICC, submitting detailed claims for infrastructure costs attributable to climate harm. An internationally administered Climate Adaptation Trust Fund, capitalized by entities like Chevron, BP, and high-liability states such as the United States, could fund these crucial projects. Thus, protective measures become concrete reparations—paid directly by those responsible, rather than by international charity or Maldivian taxpayers. The CCLC ensures transparent, proportionate allocation of adaptation costs, converting moral imperatives ("polluters must pay") into legally enforceable demands and delivering tangible survival mechanisms to climate-vulnerable communities.

4. Economic, Cultural, and Spiritual Reparations – Addressing Irreplaceable Losses

Some damages—like cultural destruction, territorial loss, and forced migration—cannot truly be compensated monetarily. Earthrise Accord recognizes these as “spiritual desecration,” devastating blows to national identity and heritage. Although courts historically struggle with quantifying intangible losses, a CCLC-based reparations approach provides structured, tangible acknowledgment of these profound harms. Reparations might include establishing heritage conservation funds, documenting traditional practices and histories, and supporting community cohesion if forced migration becomes inevitable.

High-liability actors could additionally fund comprehensive resettlement programs, education trust funds, or even guaranteed citizenship quotas for displaced Maldivians. This concept shifts reparations from mere financial transfers to genuine restorative justice—providing Maldivians the dignity, resources, and choices necessary for a future potentially removed from their homeland. If, hypothetically, entities with a combined CCLC of 25% (like the U.S. and its major corporations) are found liable, they would bear responsibility for corresponding shares of migration support and cultural preservation, confronting climate migration not merely as humanitarian aid but as a legal and moral obligation.

In Summary – CCLC as Actionable Climate Justice for the Maldives

Applying the Climate Change Liability Coefficient to the Maldives vividly demonstrates how ideals of climate justice translate into enforceable legal remedies. The hypothetical ICC case "Maldives vs. Big Oil," as envisioned by Earthrise Accord, would leverage rigorous evidence of emissions, obstruction, and deceit to establish criminal responsibility and financial accountability. The CCLC provides a precise, transparent formula translating moral claims into legally binding obligations.

This case study exemplifies the comprehensive nature of climate reparations: financing global interventions to curb sea-level rise, establishing transformative clean-energy infrastructure, funding robust local adaptation, and compensating profound cultural and territorial losses. Through the CCLC, vulnerable nations like the Maldives transition from powerless petitioners to rightful claimants, wielding moral clarity backed by rigorous scientific accountability. Ultimately, the Maldives’ struggle embodies a global imperative: polluters must pay, justice must be quantified, and reparations must tangibly secure a just and resilient future.

Feasibility and Challenges of Implementing the Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC)

The Climate Change Liability Coefficient (CCLC) represents an ambitious step forward in climate justice. While robustly grounded in scientific, legal, and moral principles, its practical implementation faces notable challenges across technical, economic, legal, and socio-political realms.

Technical Feasibility

From a technical perspective, calculating the CCLC is entirely feasible given today’s scientific and economic data resources. Historical national emissions have been meticulously documented by the IPCC and authoritative research databases. Similarly, company-level emissions have been comprehensively detailed by the Climate Accountability Institute and others, offering reliable baselines. Economic capacity, essential for determining financial capability, is routinely tracked through well-established GDP and financial statistics.

Measuring the component of obstruction—corporate and governmental efforts to delay climate action—is slightly more nuanced but still achievable. InfluenceMap’s research, which meticulously tracks corporate lobbying and misinformation campaigns, provides a quantifiable basis. For instance, InfluenceMap identified that the top five oil majors spend approximately $115 million annually on climate obstruction. Internal documents, notably those from ExxonMobil, explicitly demonstrate knowing deception and can be systematically evaluated by expert panels to assign culpability scores.

The primary technical challenge lies in formulating the appropriate weighting system within the CCLC, balancing emissions, obstruction, and economic capability. This task mirrors existing climate equity modeling methodologies used by organizations such as the Climate Equity Reference Project. Scenario analyses could refine this framework, exploring different weightings (e.g., varying the obstruction component from 20% to 30%) to test sensitivity and fairness.

Additionally, the growing precision of attribution science enhances the feasibility of linking specific climate impacts directly to emission sources—an increasingly common feature in litigation scenarios. Methods such as fractional attributable risk now enable clearer causal connections between particular emissions and extreme weather events.

Thus, technically, the creation and periodic updating of the CCLC is entirely practical with current scientific capabilities. Organizations such as the IPCC or UNEP could readily convene dedicated working groups to formalize CCLC methodologies using established data sets like Carbon Majors reports.

Economic Feasibility

Economically, the scale of potential climate reparations envisioned under the CCLC framework—potentially trillions of dollars—is enormous yet plausible. Major fossil fuel corporations, historically among the most profitable entities globally, collectively earned over $200 billion in profits in 2022 alone. High-liability nations similarly command multi-trillion-dollar economies, capable in principle of redirecting a portion of resources toward climate reparations.

Mechanisms such as climate damage levies, extraction taxes, or dedicated climate superfunds represent viable economic instruments guided directly by CCLC metrics. Rather than vanishing, reparative funds would stimulate sustainable economic activity through investments in climate resilience infrastructure, clean energy installations, and adaptation projects, creating beneficial economic multipliers.

However, feasibility also demands careful management of scale and timing. Immediate, massive obligations could threaten corporate solvency or prompt political backlash domestically. To address this, phased implementation—annualized payments proportionate to profits, revenue-linked obligations, or structured in-kind contributions—could mitigate economic shocks. Such strategies mirror those used historically in large legal settlements (e.g., tobacco industry settlements), making substantial obligations manageable over time.

Economically, imposing liabilities could also hasten fossil fuel phase-outs by internalizing true environmental costs, effectively driving market-based decarbonization. Nevertheless, complementary policies would be essential to buffer vulnerable communities from potential energy price shocks during this transitional phase.

While the economic means exist globally to address these reparations—particularly when contrasted with the far greater costs of unchecked climate devastation—significant political will and innovative financing solutions (e.g., climate bonds, sovereign debt offsets) are necessary. The CCLC thus makes explicit both the scale of obligations and the need for equitable economic redistribution.

Legal and Political Feasibility

The most formidable barriers to CCLC implementation are likely legal and political. Embedding CCLC obligations into legally binding frameworks—nationally or internationally—requires overcoming entrenched political resistance, particularly from high-liability states and industries.

Internationally, a dedicated treaty (the envisioned "Earthrise Accord") might formally codify the CCLC and establish authoritative enforcement mechanisms. However, powerful nations have historically resisted liability provisions, as illustrated by Article 8 of the Paris Agreement explicitly excluding liability language. Overcoming such resistance will demand sustained diplomatic pressure, perhaps catalyzed by increasingly severe climate impacts or robust coalitions of vulnerable states advocating collective action.

Legal precedents exist for liability regimes (e.g., oil spill or nuclear accident compensation frameworks) that could inform international climate reparations. Politically, incremental victories through domestic courts could build normative pressure toward comprehensive international frameworks. For instance, if national courts increasingly adopt CCLC-guided damage awards, international actors might prefer negotiated global mechanisms to ad hoc legal uncertainty.

Within national jurisdictions, retroactive liability through specialized legislation (e.g., a Climate Superfund Act) would face substantial legal challenges, including constitutional objections regarding ex post facto punishment and complex causation defenses. However, mounting evidence of intentional deceit by fossil fuel corporations (e.g., ExxonMobil’s documented misinformation campaigns) significantly bolsters legal arguments grounded in traditional fraud and product liability precedents.

International criminal liability under concepts such as ecocide faces distinct legal hurdles—requiring Rome Statute amendments backed by a two-thirds majority of ICC members. Nevertheless, even proposing such measures shifts global discourse, potentially facilitating negotiated reparative frameworks as preferable alternatives.

Enforcement mechanisms present additional complexities. Domestically, established practices (asset seizure, lien placement) provide enforceable measures. Internationally, enforcement might require innovative mechanisms like trade penalties or offsetting climate debts against existing financial obligations, approaches already under discussion within global financial governance circles.

Public Opinion and Ethical Feasibility

Ultimately, the CCLC’s viability hinges upon public acceptance of its underlying ethical rationale: those responsible for climate harm must compensate victims proportionately. Polling consistently supports the “polluter pays” principle in principle, yet translating this into widespread acceptance of substantial international reparations demands sustained advocacy and public education.

Public opinion can waver significantly, influenced by fossil fuel interests’ misinformation campaigns, portraying reparations unfairly as undue burdens on consumers. Combating this misinformation requires concerted efforts by advocacy organizations, clear communication strategies, and compelling narratives highlighting corporate deception and resultant injustices—building moral urgency and political will.

Grassroots movements (youth climate strikes, Indigenous environmental defenders, global climate justice coalitions) will be vital in mainstreaming climate reparations. Like prior social justice movements—such as marriage equality or anti-tobacco litigation—climate liability could rapidly transition from marginal advocacy to broadly accepted norms through persistent and strategic public campaigns.

Conclusion

Implementing the Climate Change Liability Coefficient faces significant but surmountable challenges. Technically feasible with existing data and methods, economically manageable through phased implementation and innovative financing, and legally viable through careful strategy and persistent advocacy, the CCLC embodies actionable climate justice.

However, realizing this potential demands confronting powerful vested interests, navigating complex legal landscapes, and mobilizing sustained public support. As catastrophic climate impacts escalate, political and moral imperatives to embrace mechanisms like the CCLC will likely strengthen, enhancing feasibility. As I've emphasized, it requires a foundational shift in our values and systems—a new politics of truth, accountability, and restorative justice—to transform this ambitious framework from conceptual possibility into concrete global action.

Sources:

1. Anders, Eric. “Maldives vs. Big Oil at the ICC: Physical Destruction, Spiritual Desecration & Ecocidal Complicity.” Earthrise Accord Blog, April 25, 2025.

2. Anders, Eric. “Legal Feasibility Study: Prosecuting Fossil Fuel Extraction as International Crimes.” Earthrise Accord Blog, April 15, 2025.

3. Climate Accountability Institute. Carbon Majors Database (2017 Data Update and Heede 2014 study).

4. Riley, Tess. “Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says.” The Guardian, 10 July 2017theguardian.comtheguardian.com.

5. Bookman, Sam. “Smith v Fonterra: A Common Law Climate Litigation Breakthrough.” Columbia Climate Law Blog, Feb. 12, 2024.

6. Conservation Law Foundation. Press Release: Fossil Fuel Industry Challenges VT Climate Superfund Law, Jan. 3, 2025.

7. Cohen, Li. “Vermont becomes 1st state to pass law requiring fossil fuel companies to pay for climate damages.” CBS News, May 31, 2024.

8. Kaminski, Isabella. “Carbon Majors Can Be Held Liable for Human Rights Violations, Philippines Commission Rules.” Climate Liability News (via BHRRC), Dec. 9, 2019business-humanrights.orgbusiness-humanrights.org.

9. Rannard, Georgina. “ExxonMobil: Oil giant predicted climate change in 1970s – scientists.” BBC News, 12 Jan 2023.

10. The Guardian (staff). “Farmer’s house in danger from climate change, court told in RWE case.” 19 Mar 2025theguardian.com.

11. InfluenceMap. “Big Oil’s Real Agenda on Climate Change – Lobbying Report.” (2022)influencemap.org.

12. United Nations General Assembly. Resolution A/RES/77/276, “Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate change,” 29 Mar 2023.

13. IPCC AR6 WGII. “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.” (2022) – Chapter 8 (Poverty, Livelihoods, and Sustainable Development) [for historical responsibility data].