In Aftermath of Devastating Flood, Nepal Sought Justice From Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters–Then To

Commentary

The China-Nepal border flood disaster, which per the latest figures killed at least 1,344 people and left more than 4,900 missing, has changed the lives of many Nepalis and the families of victims and survivors from 39 countries who were present there on that fateful day. People lost loved ones, homes built with loans and hard-earned savings, and businesses built over years — all before their eyes in an instant.

Nepal’s Finance Minister, Swarnim Wagle, told Reuters last week that the country would need nearly $4–5 billion to rebuild what it lost on Aug. 26. This is equivalent to around one-tenth of Nepal’s total economy.

While foreign aid was immediately offered and continuously poured in from India, China, the United States, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, and other nations in the aftermath, the Himalayan country, facing a future highly prone to climate-linked natural disasters, initially decided to ask the world’s largest greenhouse-gas emitters — China, the United States, and India — for justice and responsibility, but then walked back this plan, with Kathmandu denying that any such demand had been made.

Initially, Nepal’s Foreign Minister, Shisir Khanal, in an interview on Aug. 31 with local broadcaster Kantipur TV’s Fireside, had asserted that Nepal no longer wanted to treat post-disaster assistance as mere “humanitarian aid” or “bilateral grants,” but wanted compensation from the largest greenhouse-gas emitters.

For the best of our weekly content！

You are now signed up for our newsletter

Check your email to complete sign up

“Nepal’s greenhouse gas emissions are virtually negligible. Yet, we are paying the ultimate price for a global crisis we did not create. The rapid melting of glaciers and these catastrophic mountain tsunamis are direct consequences of global climate change,” said Khanal, according to a report by The Kathmandu Post.

The Foreign Minister asserted a policy of “justice and compensation” rather than “aid,” and Nepal’s Ministry of Finance has already formally shared a climate compensation claim letter with its international partners.

“This is not a matter of charity; it is a matter of legal and moral liability. The major industrial emitters—such as China, which is the world’s top emitter, the United States at number two, and India at number three—have a historical responsibility to compensate vulnerable nations like Nepal,” Khanal said.

China contributes 27 percent of total carbon emissions, followed by the U.S, at 12 percent and India at 8 percent of the total global share. Russia and Brazil account for five percent each, while Indonesia and Japan account for four percent and two percent, respectively, according to Our World in Data’s 2024 statistics.

Highlighting the government’s bold diplomatic strategy, Khanal said his government would assert its new policy narrative with firmness and clarity at every forthcoming international forum.

“This is a matter of civilisational survival. If our Himalayan glaciers disappear, the water security of over two billion people in South Asia—dependent on rivers like the Ganges and the Trishuli—will be permanently compromised. We are advocating not just for Nepal, but for the survival of South Asian civilization,” he said.

However, a few days later, on Friday, Sept. 4, Khanal denied having asked for any compensation.

“Neither I nor anyone in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Government of Nepal has claimed or asked for compensation from India or any other country, including China or the United States,” he told Asia News International (ANI).

“Our call has been for the global community to look at this disaster from the perspective of climate change and the impact it’s having in Nepal,” said Khanal.

Small economies and big catastrophes

The disaster in Nepal is a case of a small economy wracked by a major disaster caused, at least in part, by what bigger economies are doing. Whether compensation is given in the name of justice and responsibility or merely out of goodwill as relief, the truth is that in today’s world of mounting climatic change, no nation’s misfortune is that nation’s alone.

Nepal’s GDP of about US$45 billion is ranked 105th place globally. While its population of around 30 million is comparable to that of Australia’s 28 million, the Australian economy is worth US$1.95 billion — more than 40 times that of Nepal. 

While many comparisons and commentaries have already been published in the aftermath of the disaster about how the cost of rebuilding places an additional burden on a “poor nation,” Nepal’s young government, elected after a Gen Z protest last year, is governing a major Himalayan nation with highly disaster-prone geography. The whole world likely had a role in creating the conditions for the Aug. 26 catastrophe.

Investigations and debates surrounding the disaster — which was caused by the collapse of a melting glacier — are still ongoing. But numerous research reports are available on how rapid economic growth elsewhere is severely impacting the ice cover of the Himalayas.

Any catastrophe calls for an immediate response, rescue, and relief. However, long-term responses always take time and depend on a sustained commitment.

Poverty does not imply that disaster-affected people should always be pushed to beg for aid. By asserting that Nepal should be compensated on just grounds instead of merely being offered aid, Nepal’s leadership had not only rejected the “poverty” stigma but had also called for a shared commitment to a safer future.

However, by taking a U-turn, it sent a message that assertive policymaking is influenced by much more than the tragic reality of the disaster and its circumstances.