If the world is serious about addressing global warming, the principle of climate justice must be placed at the heart of the international response: greater historical responsibility should entail greater financial responsibility.
The climate crisis cannot be fought on the basis of a system in which the countries that have historically emitted the most pollutants ask those that contributed far less to pay for the consequences. Nor can climate finance become another instrument for deepening the indebtedness of developing nations. If the world is serious about addressing global warming, the principle of climate justice must be placed at the heart of the international response: greater historical responsibility should entail greater financial responsibility. Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently drew attention to this imbalance by pointing out that India’s per-capita carbon emissions remain far below those of developed countries. The argument is significant because climate responsibility cannot be assessed solely on the basis of a country’s total emissions while ignoring population, historical emissions and differing levels of development.
The financing pattern makes the inequity even more apparent. According to the OECD’s latest assessment, developed countries provided and mobilised $136.7 billion in climate finance for developing countries in 2024, exceeding the long-promised $100-billion annual goal. Yet 67 per cent of public climate finance in that year came in the form of loans, compared with only 29 per cent as grants. For countries already struggling with debt, financing the costly transition to renewable energy, climate-resilient infrastructure and adaptation through additional borrowing can create a difficult contradiction: they are being asked to invest in protecting the planet while simultaneously increasing their financial liabilities.
There is, of course, no denying that industrialisation remains essential for economic development. Developing countries cannot be expected to abandon their aspirations for better infrastructure, employment and higher living standards. Nor should the contribution of industrialised nations to technological and economic progress be disregarded. But that achievement cannot become a licence to shift the financial burden of climate action onto countries that have fewer resources and, in many cases, much lower per-capita emissions. The more constructive approach would be to make climate finance genuinely developmental. Wealthier countries should provide greater access to grants, affordable technology, technical expertise and capacity-building so that developing nations can pursue sustainable growth without sacrificing their legitimate development goals. Such assistance should not be viewed as charity. A warming planet does not respect national boundaries, and climate-related disasters in one region can have economic, humanitarian and environmental consequences far beyond it. At the same time, developing countries must also accept their share of responsibility. A credible global mechanism could therefore link contributions to a combination of present emissions, historical responsibility and economic capacity. Such a framework would ensure that major contemporary emitters also make substantial contributions while placing a proportionately greater obligation on those with greater financial and historical capacity.
The climate crisis is ultimately a collective challenge that demands collective responsibility. The objective should not be to determine who pays the price for climate action, but to establish a fair system in which every country contributes according to its capacity and responsibility. If climate finance becomes an instrument of partnership rather than debt, the world may stand a better chance of confronting global warming with the unity and urgency it demands.