If we apply environmental science as a lens to explore the idea of the atmosphere as a commons, we can also find shared concepts of international inequality and responsibility. Matthews (2015) points out the importance of international inequalities regarding historical anthropogenic contributions to climate change and how these can usefully be quantified in ‘carbon debt’ and ‘climate debt’ accumulations.

Matthews (2015) and Vanderheiden (2008) could be placed in dialogue to further understand the reality of the atmosphere as an unequally exploited shared resource across generations. By analysing the ‘carbon debt’ through national data on fossil fuel CO2 emissions, the USA is a clear leader among debtor countries, while India and China are the most notable for historically low per-capita emissions. This concurring aspect of environmental science analysis is useful not only because it can inform both future policy making and the international governance of the atmosphere, but it can additionally paint a more complete and realistic picture of the atmosphere as a commons in the past and present.

On the other hand, the analysis of the more comprehensive ‘climate debt’ is a critically important measure that environmental science can offer to interpret this reality. It encompasses “a wider range of emissions” and therefore “some countries change from holding a carbon credit to carrying a climate debt” by showing how country-specific emissions contributed to global temperature increase (Matthews, 2015: 61). However, the analytical scope and some aspects of the methodological approach that Matthews (2015) are somewhat limited and do not realistically portray emissions contributions, especially in the contemporary context. The use of per capita emissions shares is problematic and can oversimplify the concept of fairness and historical responsibility between countries, as India and China tend to fall as countries with emissions credits. This is especially uncertain in today’s environmental landscape, where India and China “are expected to emit more emissions in 2030 than they did in 2010” (UNEP, 2021: 15), playing a vital role in atmospheric loss. The pre-industrial narrative of international emissions would provide a more critical and useful image of reality and responsibility - by not having the past in mind, change in the present cannot be properly operationalised.

Economics, as Neumayer (2000: 7) explains, considers past emissions as being extremely important in distributing the atmosphere as a common resource, stating that “science is on the side of historical accountability”. Neumayer (2000) would therefore agree with Matthews (2015) on this understanding of the shared nature of the atmosphere and its practicality to implement change. Their shared idea of measuring emissions per capita with individual historical inequalities taken into account would allocate an equal share of the atmosphere to every person, an equal individual right to pollute. In this sense, however, Neumayer (2000: 16) also illustrates the importance of economics and “per capita allocation with historical accountability” to implement change and inform policymaking on an international scale, stating that “any comprehensive treaty in the early next century will be futile without the cooperation of these countries”. This is contextually powerful due to the current landscape of anthropogenic climate change in which the then-developing countries like China and India are today among the top contributors.

However, we must delve deeper into the economic perspective to critically assess its relevance in the evaluationof the atmosphere as a global commons. If we further examine the dialogue between economics, political theory and environmental science, we can identify the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Hardin, 1968) to describe the multidimensional reality of commons governance problems. Ostrom (1990: 24) explores such a relationship, stating that for a commons to not fall in this tragedy, “empirically validated theories of human organisation will be essential ingredients of a policyscience”. In this sense, data retrieved by economic approaches and environmental science must inform policymaking to successfully manage shared resources.

If we further examine the dialogue between economics, political theory and environmental science, we can identify the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Hardin, 1968) to describe the multidimensional reality of ‘commons’governance problems. Ostrom (1990: 24) explores such a relationship, stating that for a commons to not fall in this tragedy, “empirically validated theories of human organisation will be essential ingredients of a policy science”. In this sense, data retrieved by economic approaches and environmental science must inform policymaking to successfully manage shared resources. Further, Soroos (1995: 2) states how anthropogenic activity has led to a “tragedy of the atmosphere”, and evaluates the economic value given to resource units of ‘commons’ governance as an important aspect of this tragedy. In this sense, it could be argued that the economic outlook is problematic in commons thinking. Although scholars like Raymond (2003) argue the privatisation of common resources would be more economically viable and would avoid the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’, Vanderheiden (2008: 18) more agreeably identifies that this could lead to a “carbon colonialism” that markets the private individual rights to emissions.

Overall, we can learn that each perspective can unveil different realities and limitations of the atmospheric commons. The international and intergenerational justice framework that political theory provides is vital to the sustainable governance of the atmosphere, especially in an international cooperative context. Although its limitations include scope and methodology, environmental science can also provide a vital understanding of the atmosphere as a commons and an important blueprint for policymaking, and is in accordance with the ideas of international and intergenerational justice that political theory offers. Climate credits are practical, but climate debts can be especiallyrelevant because they portray a more comprehensive and authentic picture of the atmospheric commons. It also strengthens the global notion of responsibility, evidenced in the differences between developed and developing countries, that also falls in line with political thinking. Economics can reveal the complex and multidimensional relationship between these three approaches, but is extremely useful in its understanding of the past and how this can beused to change the present. Its utilitarian nature can hinder the sustainable governance of the atmosphere although other approaches like consumption-based accounting could describe a more valuable reality.

Ultimately, the different realities and approaches that economics and environmental science can provide havethe potential to inform and implement change in the present through policy making, in which political thought and responses play an important governing and distributive role. In this sense, responsibility is addressed globally and equitably, an exercise in which ethics, morality and foresight towards the future are vital. In addition, understanding the importance of the past, especially in regards to the pre-industrial history of emissions and responsibility, can shape effective notions of the sustainability of the atmosphere as a commons in the present. To avoid the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’, or the atmospheric tragedy, the triangle of economics, environmental science and political thought must reach an informed consensus that defines the atmosphere as a sustainably governed resource with different historical yet shared responsibilities.