In Belém, Brazil, nearly 200 countries have gathered for the 30th conference of the parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to discuss the ongoing climate crisis. Taking place right on the edge of the dwindling Amazon rainforest from Nov. 10-21, the conference consists of leaders from developing countries urging the UN to make a change and hold wealthy countries accountable for pollution and waste.

At the conference, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called for a roadmap to “undo deforestation, overcome fossil fuels and mobilize the resources needed,” with others suggesting a global carbon budget or market, giving credits to those who produce less carbon emissions. These underproducing countries could then sell their credits to overproducing countries, allowing the underproducing country to economically benefit from lessening their carbon footprint. Currently, international funding to meet carbon emission goals is lacking, and underdeveloped nations suffer natural disasters– such as Haiti facing hurricanes, and Kenya facing alternating droughts and floods– despite these countries contributing very little to global carbon emissions. At last year’s summit, wealthy countries pledged $300 billion to support poorer nations; however, to meet the actual needs of these countries, an estimated $1.3 trillion is needed. The money from last year’s conference still has yet to be distributed, and underdeveloped countries are starting to call for less charity, and more action through the reduction of carbon emissions. Recently, The UN Environment Program (UNEP) has reported the high likelihood of surpassing the 1.5° C global warming marker; meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump denies the existence of a climate crisis, while the nation emits the second highest level of carbon globally.

Wealthy nations throwing money at the climate crisis is pasting a band-aid over a bullet hole.  Allowing a credit system where wealthy countries pay poorer countries will also not make up for a lack of climate infrastructure in underdeveloped countries– it will not save these countries from poverty, but offer just enough aid to keep them moving after each landslide, each hurricane, and each drought. The credit system will also allow wealthy countries to justify their contributions to carbon emissions- they can say that they’ve done their due diligence in buying up credits from a poor country, while continuing to emit vast amounts of carbon dioxide. The only way to truly deal with the climate crisis is by taking down massive carbon emitters. In 2023, China was the largest emitter of carbon dioxide gas, at almost 12 million metric tons, over twice that of the United States, comprising nearly a third of all global emissions. These massive emissions could easily be reduced by more sustainable production and global consumption. Chinese goods could be taxed while being exported, and this money could be reallocated to Chinese businesses to move towards more sustainable production. Benchmarks- and penalties for violating them- should also be set for carbon emissions. Of course China is only one piece of the global climate crisis, so these approaches also be applied to other countries, or specific corporations that contribute heavily to carbon emissions.

In the United States, carbon emissions come largely from energy production, with Americans consuming the most energy per capita of any country; China, the second-largest energy consumer, still less than a third of the the United States. American homes tend to be excessively large and stand alone, and are thoroughly air conditioned in the summer and heated in the winter. It’s also typical to use dryers regularly and leave lights on needlessly throughout the home, neither of which are typical for the majority of people living outside of the United States. These wasteful habits add up over millions of Americans to produce a large national carbon footprint. Charging more for energy usage within the United States could benefit the environment, as people learn to cut down on their energy usage in hopes of driving down household expenses. This is very typical in many European countries, and has successfully led to low energy usage by individual households.

If there are not massive changes to global carbon emission trends very soon, climate change will very quickly reach the point of no return. There is no single fix that will work for every country, and there is no singular entity at fault, but the distribution of catastrophe to countries that have contributed significantly less than those facing little to no climate change driven catastrophe is incredibly unjust.