The National Academy of Sciences recently proposed a new system for assigning international carbon emissions quotas based on the number of wealthy people living in a given country. The new system, they say, would not only bring a greater sense of equity between rich and developing nations in the fight against climate change, but also deflect nationalist criticism that quotas give large developing countries an unfair advantage.

Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week, the proposed system would provide guidelines for reducing greenhouse emissions beyond the Kyoto Protocol’s 2012 expiration date. Instead of focusing on a country’s carbon emissions in the aggregate, a new strategy could put a cap on emissions for each citizen. An international body would then take account of the number of citizens in a given country above the individual allotment and use that data to determine benchmarks for carbon reductions.

The wealthy produce significantly more carbon emissions than their less well-off counterparts. The affluent spew countless tons of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-powered vehicles, palatial homes and by racking up frequent flier miles. Although some see the measure as a simple tax on luxury goods, proponents of the system say it may spur innovation and a move toward green technology.

Huge emissions, however, are not just a problem of the mega-rich. On average, Americans produce 20 tons of carbon emissions per capita, compared to 10 tons in Europe and a global average of just five tons.

Although it is true that the world’s wealthiest countries tend to have the heftiest greenhouse emissions, the focus of the proposed strategy is on individuals. The measure would distribute carbon-cutting costs based on those segments of the population that are at the heart of the problem, and provide a method for easing quickly developing countries into a carbon reduction framework. China and India, both of whom have accused the West of using climate change as an excuse to prescribe prohibitive economic regulation, will not have to invest much in sustainable growth in the short-run, but will face increased restrictions as their societies grow more affluent.

The report comes ahead of two major international summits this week, where the upcoming Copenhagen climate change talks will undoubtedly be a major point of contention. Although the House recently pushed through a cap and trade bill for stricter regulation in the United States, President Obama is expected to face criticism from colleagues at the meeting of the Group of 8 who will say America has not done its part. Earlier today, the G-8 hit an impasse in conversations over a unified carbon-cutting plan, which may hurt prospects for future reduction strategies. The G-8 Summit overlaps with a meeting of the Major Economies Forum, a climate-minded group that includes developing nations like China and Brazil, who will resist stricter environmental regulation. Because the Obama Administration will need to deal with countries on both sides of the carbon emissions argument, the study suggests that shifting the focus of carbon emissions regulation to individuals may be the key to getting the ball rolling on any sort of unified climate change initiatives.