Opinion
Who will pay for the climate crisis?
Nepal has demanded climate compensation after the recent devastating landslides and floods that killed thousands and caused widespread damage. The question that Nepal has raised by demanding compensation from major emitters like the United States, India, and China is not unique to Nepal. Rather, it is one of the world’s biggest justice questions: who will ultimately pay for the damage caused by climate change?
To find the answer to this question, we need to look back. Since the Industrial Revolution, much of the world’s economic growth has been based on coal, oil, and gas. These fuels have fueled unprecedented prosperity in the economies, urbanization, and lifestyles of industrialised <a href="https://absafricatv.com/china-stresses-law-enforcement-cooperation-with-east-african-countries/” title=”China stresses law enforcement cooperation with East African countries”>countries. But the environmental costs of that prosperity are not just on their shoulders.
Global warming is increasing, sea levels are rising, rainfall patterns are changing, cyclones and heat waves are intensifying, droughts are getting longer in some places, and the risk of floods and landslides is increasing in others. And the biggest impact of all this is often falling on countries that have played a relatively small role in creating this crisis.
This is where the biggest paradox of climate change lies. The countries or populations that have contributed the least to global warming often suffer the most. A coastal farmer in Bangladesh, a small farmer in Africa, or a family in a remote village in the Himalayas did not make the decision to join the global carbon economy. But they are paying the price of climate change with their lives and livelihoods.
So the question arises, is this just bad luck, or is it a matter of responsibility?
This is where the concept of climate justice comes into play. Not all countries are equally responsible for the climate crisis, nor are all countries equally affected. As a result, the argument that everyone should be equally responsible for the solution does not stand the test of fairness.
Countries that have achieved economic prosperity by emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases for a long time cannot be limited to reducing emissions in the future. They must also face the question of taking responsibility for a part of the damage caused today due to those past emissions.
There is a debate over the word ‘compensation’. Many in developed countries want to see climate finance as a continuation of development aid. On the other hand, affected countries argue that getting money for damage they did not cause due to the climate crisis is not kindness. It should be part of a fair international system.
The difference between the two positions is very important. Aid usually depends on the goodwill of the donor. But compensation depends on liability. When asking for aid, the poor country is a beneficiary; but when it demands fair compensation, it speaks of its rights. This change in language is very important in climate politics.
Of course, there is a hard reality here. It is not possible to hold any specific country responsible for the entire damage of every flood, cyclone or landslide in the world. In addition to climate change, local topography, deforestation, unplanned urbanization, weak infrastructure or a lack of disaster management can also make a disaster more severe. Therefore, an effective compensation system should not be based on emotions, but on scientific evidence, historical emissions, current emissions, economic viability and the scale of damage.
But this complexity does not negate the need for compensation. On the contrary, it shows that we need a more fair and effective international system.
The world is already talking about ‘Loss and Damage’. The UN climate process has decided to create a fund for this. This is undoubtedly an important step forward. But creating a fund is not the same as ensuring sufficient money compared to the need.
This is the major weakness of the current system. The scale of damage from the climate crisis is increasing rapidly, while compensation money still depends largely on voluntary commitments and political will. Uncertain and inadequate financing cannot be a sustainable solution to the damage of a crisis that has accumulated over decades and whose effects will continue for decades to come.
The bigger question is, where will this money come from?
Relying solely on the national budgets of developed countries will be difficult to meet in the long term. Proposals such as a global levy on the excess profits of the fossil fuel industry, certain types of charges on international aviation and shipping, mandatory contributions from high-emitting countries, or creating new sources of finance through the international financial system could be seriously considered for climate compensation. It is not unreasonable to create a link between an economy that has long benefited from its dependence on fossil fuels and an economy that has benefited from climate damage.
Another issue is whether loss-and-damage finance should come in the form of loans. On paper, a loan may count as climate finance. But from the perspective of justice, the picture is very different. If a country that has suffered economic losses due to floods, cyclones, or rising sea levels has to borrow again to deal with those losses, the burden of the loss is simply shifted from the present to the future. Therefore, financing for loss and damage needs to be as grant-based and predictable as possible.
The greatest injustice of the climate crisis may not simply be that some people are losing their homes, land and livelihoods. It may be that those who contributed least to creating the crisis are being asked to pay the highest price for it.
Here, the question of the responsibility of the developed world is even clearer. Just as it is not right to simply claim that the development of industrialized countries is not entirely due to climate change, it is also not consistent with reality to deny the role of their historical emissions. Today”s climate crisis is not the result of any one year’s emissions; it is the result of accumulated emissions over many decades. Therefore, determining responsibility only by looking at current emissions leaves out a large part of history.
At the same time, the reality of the current world must be acknowledged. Countries like China and India are now among the world’s largest emitters, although their historical responsibility and per capita emissions are not the same as those of developed Western countries. As a result, a future climate compensation system cannot be stuck in a simple division of ”West vs. the rest of the world”. Those with greater historical responsibility, higher current emissions, and greater economic capacity must take proportionately greater responsibility.
That is, the basis of climate compensation should be justice, not revenge.
Another important aspect of this justice is where the money will go. The responsibility does not end when money is deposited in international funds. If money is also stuck in the bureaucratic structures of the affected country, or if the needs of local people are neglected in the name of large infrastructure projects, then that funding will lose its original purpose.
The ultimate beneficiaries of climate compensation must be the people who are actually suffering—coastal farmers, landless families in river erosion, displaced people, small-scale fishers, agricultural workers, and communities whose livelihoods have been lost due to climate change.
This debate is therefore particularly important for Bangladesh.
We have long been known as one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. Although our emissions are very small compared to the global crisis, the impact of climate change on our development, agriculture, water, coastal life, and human migration is becoming increasingly visible. As a result, climate financing for Bangladesh is not just another matter of international aid; it is a question of future development and justice.
However, we also need to be careful about one thing. Demanding compensation alone is not enough. What the international framework for compensation will be, what damage will be considered compensable, how liability will be scientifically determined, how the money will be distributed, and how it will reach local people—these are questions that countries like Bangladesh need to take a stronger stance on.
Much of the discussion on climate change has been about how to prevent future disasters. Then came the question of how to adapt people to those changes. Now comes the more difficult question—who will pay for the damage that has already been done?
The answer to this question is not just a question of money. It is also a question of history. It is a question of development models. It is a question of power. And most of all, it is a question of justice.
Nepal’s recent claim has only brought that question to the fore. But the question is much bigger than Nepal. As the number and scale of climate disasters increase in the coming days, the world will have to decide—will we keep climate-affected countries dependent on sympathy and relief, or will we accept their losses as part of a just international obligation?
Climate change does not respect national borders. Its consequences do not stop at the borders of the countries least responsible for causing it. If the benefits of carbon-intensive development have been accumulated disproportionately in one part of the world while its costs are increasingly borne elsewhere, then the international system must find a fairer way to share those costs.
The greatest injustice of the climate crisis may not simply be that some people are losing their homes, land and livelihoods. It may be that those who contributed least to creating the crisis are being asked to pay the highest price for it.
* Atia Ibnat Rifah, and Azizul Hakim Rakib are postrgaduate students at the Department of International Relations, University of Rajshahi. They are also independent researchers researching in the field of climate change adaptation, environmental governance and politics, climate justice, and gender studies.
* The views expressed here are the authors’ own
Follow the Google news channel to get Prothom Alo’s latest news
Read more from Op-Ed
