Rich nations should make the deepest emission cuts and provide most money if countries are to share fairly the responsibility of preventing catastrophic climate change, says a major new study.

Calculations by Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) scientists and Friends of the Earth suggest the UK would need to make cuts of up to 75% on 1990 emission levels by 2025 and would also need to transfer $49bn (£30bn) to developing countries. The US would have to cut slightly less, but transfer up to $634bn to make a fair contribution.

But in a fair system of shared responsibility, most developing countries would be net receivers, says the report, released ahead of Ban Ki-moon’s climate summit in New York on Tuesday. Kenya would receive $2bn, and be allowed to increase its emissions by more than 50%, while Peru would be allowed to double its emissions and receive $6bn. South Africa would have to cut emissions only marginally, but would receive $13bn, and the Philippines would be given $6bn, although it would have to cut emissions by up to 46%.

The first scientific attempt to link precise emission cuts and the money needed to hold temperatures to a 1.5C rise by 2025 takes UN data and calculates each country’s “fair share”. It does so by factoring in how much carbon each country has emitted historically, how much wealth it has and its population. The principle of fairness, and the right of some countries to receive support, are accepted in the UN climate talks.

Given its population, wealth and limited historical responsibility, China could argue that it has the right to increase its emissions by about 40% by 2025, but if the world is to hold to a 1.5C target it needs to cut its emissions on today’s levels by 25% to 45%. “That difference could cost China up to $497bn – transfers that would need to be made via access to technology,” says the report.

Equally, Russia is said to deserve financial help to move away from fossil fuels given its fall in emissions since the end of the USSR and its relative poverty. But Brazil would get almost no financial support and would have to reduce its emissions by 22% on 1990 levels to do its fair share.

“In the Philippines we know we have to take action, and the analysis shows that on our own we can only increase our emissions by 40% or so by 2025, which is less than what is currently projected. We are struggling to stop the expansion of coal in order to meet that fair share,” said Lidy Nacpil, of the Jubilee South-Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development.

She added: “But the science also shows that the Philippines’ fair share will not be enough, and to stop climate change we must do more to reduce emissions than would be expected.

“We are demanding the transfer of resources in order to do that, estimated here to be up to $9bn a year by 2030. We call this a part of the climate debt owed to us and it is needed if we are to confront climate change while still responding to the needs of people.

“These deep cuts have to happen. That’s the realistic demand from people facing the full brutal force of climate change.”

Asad Rehman, from Friends of the Earth, said: “It’s the wealthy industrial nations that are largely responsible for the climate crisis we currently face, so it’s only fair they face up to their responsibilities by making large cuts in their emissions and funding climate action in the developing world too.

“It’s a basic moral principle that those with more responsibility have to take more action, and also that those with more wealth contribute more. What should each country do is an ethical question.”

The fraught question of how responsibility for tackling climate change should be divided has dogged the UN climate talks for more than 20 years. Britain and other rich nations have argued that all countries should have broadly equal per capita emissions by 2050. But this is proving unacceptable in the talks for many developing countries. This is because it ignores historical responsibility for accumulating greenhouse gases emitted over the past 200 years, and because it gives a greater share of the remaining emissions that can be burned without causing catastrophic warming to rich countries.

“Using UN data we can work out what the limit on climate pollution should be for the whole world,” said Sivan Kartha, senior scientist at the SEI and the report’s author. “[This approach] shows not just what the whole world has to do, but it also helps people answer the fundamental question of the UN climate talks: what should each country do?”

• This article was amended on 22 September 2014 to add missing words to the final quote. The original said: “[This approach] shows not just what the whole world has to do, but it answers the fundamental question of the UN climate talks: what should each country do?”