Thankfully, it’s rare to encounter outright climate denial in public these days. But it is still common to hear justifications for delaying action.
One of the most pernicious and intellectually lazy arguments is the familiar nugget – that “Ireland’s emissions are too small to matter”. It’s a line still advanced by some politicians and business leaders, and, astonishingly, even appeared recently in a report published by the Irish Academy of Engineering.
This argument fails on every level – mathematical, physical, legal, moral – and defies basic common sense.
Climate change isn’t a pass/fail exam, where we have lost if we cross a threshold. It’s a cumulative problem: every tonne of carbon dioxide we emit adds to the blanket of heat-trapping gases around the planet, doing permanent and measurable harm.
Every tonne causes extra warming that melts ice, intensifies rainfall, worsens droughts and acidifies the ocean a little more. In climate litigation cases around the world, courts are recognising this link, attributing damages from specific emitters to specific climate impacts.
[ Cop30: Talks lead to hope but ‘not nearly enough’ action on climate crisisOpens in new window ]
Mathematically speaking, climate change results from the cumulative choices of billions of people, so every source looks small if you zoom in close enough. Even Taylor Swift’s private jet, or a single coal-fired power plant in China, are irrelevant in isolation.
But the logical outcome of this reasoning is that nothing and no one is responsible. And this flawed logic scales all the way up: no country’s emissions alone “matter”, not even China’s. If China abandoned all fossil fuel use tomorrow, the world would still warm beyond 1.5 degrees within a few years unless others followed.
This is the essence of what is known as a collective-action problem. In these cases, everyone benefits if everyone takes action, but actors alone cannot benefit from their individual efforts, and so have an incentive to free ride on the efforts of others. These problems can only be solved through co-operation.
That is precisely what international legal and diplomatic efforts on climate action are designed to achieve. The Paris Agreement is built on this principle – all countries must pursue their “highest possible ambition” in a collective effort to limit warming.
The International Court of Justice, in a landmark opinion this year, made the same point explicitly: no state may claim its emissions are “too small to matter”. Each has a duty of due diligence to prevent harm, in proportion to its capacity.
Practically speaking, limiting global warming simply can’t be achieved without efforts from small countries. More than one-third of global emissions come from countries which individually emit less than 2 per cent of the global total.
So, Ireland’s obligations to co-operate productively with the international process are clear. But even leaving law and physics aside, the strategic, diplomatic and moral cases to take a leading role are also obvious.
Even in our own self-interest, protecting ourselves from climate damages requires other countries to cut their own emissions – we cannot adapt our way out of this. But how can we advocate for this on the international stage if we ourselves refuse because our emissions are “too small” to matter? Clearly, we can’t – shirking responsibility undermines everyone’s willingness to act.
[ Become a climate ambassador in 2026 and it could bring you to all kinds of placesOpens in new window ]
We also have the financial and physical resources. Ireland has abundant potential for renewables, a climate that can allow our land to store carbon, and the wealth to invest in transition. Our per-capita emissions are two-thirds higher than the global average.
If we, with all these advantages and disproportionate responsibility, claim we’re too small to matter, what message does that send to poorer or more vulnerable countries whose emissions truly are tiny and whose fates depend on global action?
‘Why, when no one would publicly advocate tax evasion, is the “too small to matter” argument so frequently advanced by serious-sounding people?’
There’s also a particular irony in that taking climate action is in our own self-interest: clean water and air, warmer homes, lower fuel bills and reduced dependence on imported fossil fuels. The global climate imperative aligns perfectly with our national interest in energy security, biodiversity recovery, public health and economic modernisation.
Of course, the argument contains a grain of truth. It’s correct that cutting Ireland’s emissions will not, on its own, protect Ireland from climate impacts. But by this logic, should I not evade paying taxes, because these are a tiny drop in the ocean of public finances?
Should I eat a doughnut for supper, given its irrelevance in the context of everything I eat over a lifetime? Of course not! Outcomes are determined by the collective of many small actions. Ireland’s role will never be to single-handedly cool the planet, but to be part of the collective effort to turn the ship around.
So why, when no one would publicly advocate tax evasion, is the “too small to matter” argument so frequently advanced by serious-sounding people? Because it offers a comforting excuse for evading uncomfortable truths.
Fortunately, most people in Ireland don’t buy it – only 12 per cent, according to a survey carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2021.
Changing social norms – making co-operation the default – can address problems of collective action. So the next time you hear someone claim “we’re too small to matter”, ask if they pay their taxes.
Hannah Daly is professor of sustainable energy at UCC
