The importance of implementing the principle has long been recongised by the international community as critical to environmental protection. In 1972, the OECD asserted that ‘the polluter pays’ was the principle for encouraging 'rational use of scarce environmental resources.' In the same year Principle 22 of the Stockholm Declaration committed states to further developing international law 'regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage'. 

Since then 'the polluter pays' has been widely referenced as a general principle of law. The Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 16 states that: 'National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution.' Art. 191(2) of the EU's 2007 Lisbon Treaty states that EU environmental policy shall be based on the principle (inter alia) that 'the polluter should pay'.
 In practice, however, the principle has not been applied in a way that would encourage the rational use of the atmosphere and carbon sinks. Indeed the very opposite has been happening. A 2015 IMF Report, 'Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies', concludes that the failure to internalise the environmental costs of fossil fuels amounts to an annual subsidy of $5.3 trillion (that's $10 million a minute). Such a figure implies a market distortion on a vast scale; and a systematic failure to implement the principle of the 'polluter pays' in the context of climate change.

 Who is 'the polluter'?
 Everyone has a 'carbon footprint'. That does not make everyone a 'polluter who should pay’. In order to function as an economic tool, polluters should be identified as the principal economic operators profiting from the polluting activities. Such an approach is supported by the OECD Recommendations of 1992, 1(2):
 On grounds of economic efficiency and administrative convenience, it is occasionally appropriate to identify the polluter as the economic agent playing a decisive role in the pollution, rather than the agent actually originating it. Hence a vehicle manufacturer could be deemed the polluter, although pollution results from the vehicle’s use by its owner. Similarly, a pesticide producer could be the polluter, even though the pollution is the outcome of proper or improper use of pesticides. Our political and economic system is founded on obedience to the economic incentive. For as long as polluters can profit from polluting, while displacing the social and environmental costs onto others, market forces all but guarantee a disregard for human rights. Making the polluter pay is critical to changing course. 29