We open by naming a pattern we see across trade and policy: rich nations report domestic progress while shifting heavy processes and waste to the global south. Carbon colonialism describes how value stays with wealthy companies while the harms travel with goods and disposal.
Despite decades of accords, global climate targets have not stopped emissions from rising. Three years after Paris set a 1.5°C goal, annual emissions hit record highs and atmospheric CO2 climbed from 339 ppm in 1979 to about 417 ppm today. These trends show how domestic cuts can mask growing footprints abroad.
We argue that current mandates often move emissions instead of reducing them. The global north keeps the profit and exports the liabilities — waste, hazardous processes, and embedded pollution in our supply chains. For the United States, that gap matters: our consumption drives emissions hidden offshore and misstates our real impact. To change course, we must count what we consume, not only what we produce.
Key Takeaways
- We define how wealthy nations outsource pollution while claiming domestic progress.
- Longstanding agreements have not halted rising emissions worldwide.
- Imported emissions and waste hide the true footprint of our goods.
- Consumption-based accounting would reveal who bears harms and who benefits.
- U.S. policy and corporate reporting must align with supply oversight to drive real change.
What we mean by carbon colonialism in the present day
Modern supply chains hide a throughline from imperial extraction to outsourced pollution. We map how value flows to the global north while costs pile up in the global south.
From imperial extraction to outsourced emissions: the throughline to today’s climate crisis
Simply put, production was split across countries over years so firms could chase lower costs. Laurie Parsons calls this pattern part of “carbon capitalism,” arguing that outsourcing is structural, not accidental.
“Outsourcing concentrates the dirtiest processes where oversight is weakest and labor is cheapest.”
Why national climate targets miss the mark in a globalized economy
National targets count territorial emissions, so each country can appear to improve while global totals rise. Industry functions disperse across supply chains, letting countries claim compliance while the whole system emits.
We must shift to consumption-based accounting to see who benefits and who bears harms. Without that shift, justice stays sidelined and people in poorer countries remain invisible.
- Key point: governance dominated by wealthy nations leaves asymmetric rules and weak oversight.
- Result: policy fails morally and practically—our numbers look better, the world gets worse.
Carbon accounting’s blind spots: how global supply chains hide emissions
BHeadline cuts can hide a growing footprint carried across borders by traded goods. We must distinguish who produces and who consumes a product to see the real impact.
Production vs. consumption accounting: the carbon that “counts” and the carbon that doesn’t
Production accounting tallies emissions inside national borders. It is what most targets measure.
Consumption accounting reallocates those emissions to the country that buys and uses the goods. This approach captures imports and reveals hidden footprints.
Imported emissions since 1990: rich countries export climate breakdown while posting domestic cuts
About a quarter of global CO2 now travels with international trade. National numbers can fall even as world totals rise because supply chains expanded since 1990.
| Metric | 1990 | Recent years | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU net emissions (billion t) | 5.6 | 4.2 | Territorial decline (1990–2018) |
| UK domestic claim | — | 44% cut | Consumption cuts ≈10% when imports included |
| Plastic waste exports (UK) | — | ~700,000 t (2020) | Waste exported rather than managed |
Greenwashing and opacity in supply chains: outsourced waste, pollution, and industrial processes
Companies often brand products as neutral while shifting waste and industrial processes to suppliers abroad. This opacity enables greenwashing.
Unless we adopt consumption-based targets and mandatory supply disclosure, nations will continue to export their footprint and avoid accountability. In the next section we look at the people who face these harms.
On-the-ground impacts in the Global South we choose not to see
Behind labels and glossy ads lie sites where people breathe smoke and sort discarded fabric. We bring the accounting debate down to where waste piles up and kilns glow at dawn.
From Cambodian garment waste to South Asian brick kilns: people bearing the costs of our goods
In Cambodia, workers like Sopheap pick through pre-production scraps under extreme heat while brands claim zero landfill. That dissonance reveals how industry shifts harms to places with weaker oversight.
Across the South Asian brick belt, kilns burn unregulated wood and coal. Local people face higher respiratory illness, heat stress, and elevated disaster risk as climate change worsens.
“Communities living beside factories shoulder health and environmental losses that never appear on corporate balance sheets.”
We must see the human impact: droughts, cyclones, and floods multiply risks for low-wage workers and push families to migrate. Weak supply transparency lets nations externalize damage while consumers remain unaware.
- Local level: polluted water, illegal burning, long hours, and low pay.
- Regional impact: more heat waves and air pollution tied to production processes.
- Policy need: measure harms at community level and make companies accountable across supply chains.
| Site | Main local harms | Climate link | Needed action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cambodian garment dumps | Textile waste, illegal burning, wastewater | Heat stress, weather extremes | Mandatory supply disclosure, waste controls |
| South Asian brick kilns | Air pollution, respiratory illness | Increased heat waves, drought-linked migration | Fuel regulation, worker protections |
| Coastal Bangladesh & India | Flooding, displacement, lost livelihoods | Stronger cyclones, sea-level rise | Community-based resilience funding |
Counting emissions without counting people hides the true cost paid by countries least responsible for global warming. We must embed accountability for production and waste into law and corporate duty if we expect meaningful climate justice.
Reframing climate policy for justice and accountability
To achieve real change, our laws should follow the full lifecycle of a product, not only where it is made.
Shift to consumption-based targets across borders to close the carbon loophole
We must adopt consumption-based targets so emissions tied to imports appear in national accounting. Imported emissions already represent about a quarter of global CO2, so territorial targets leave a large gap.
Simply put, counting what we consume stops rich countries from exporting climate breakdown and rewards cleaner production routes.
Apply robust legal frameworks to supply chains, not just domestic production
We call for statutory due diligence that treats global supply like domestic production. Laws should cover emissions, waste, water, labor, and safety across all processes and industrial processes.
Standardized, audited disclosures must report carbon emissions embodied in imports, plus sector-level lifecycle data. This reduces greenwashing and raises oversight.
What we in the United States can demand of companies and policymakers now
We urge Congress and federal agencies to require Scope 3 value-chain reporting, independent verification, and procurement rules aligned with consumption benchmarks.
- Pass supply-chain due diligence legislation that enforces emissions and waste controls.
- Use border adjustments tied to verified lifecycle data to prevent nations export climate harms.
- Ban hazardous waste exports and strengthen controls on plastic shipments (~700,000 t from the UK in 2020 is a reminder of the scale).
Justice must be central: policy should protect people at production sites and communities along global supply routes, in line with laurie parsons’ call for accountability.
Conclusion
We close by urging that national accounting reflect the true footprint of our consumption, not just our borders. This is a strong, urgent call: unless we shift to consumption-based targets, emissions will keep hiding offshore and the climate crisis will deepen.
Imported emissions already make up about a quarter of global CO2, and atmospheric CO2 rose from 339 ppm in 1979 to 417 ppm today. Communities in the global south keep bearing the impacts—waste, pollution, and health harms tied to our goods.
We must demand U.S. leadership: adopt consumption metrics, stop waste exports, require transparent supply reporting, and verify reductions in embedded carbon. Ending carbon colonialism is both climate policy and justice. Ask companies and policymakers to own the full footprint of our economy—at home and abroad.