Ume Suleat Kakar
THE monsoon chapter of 2026 comes with the same headline for people across the third world countries. People are losing their homes and livelihoods as affluent countries continue to prioritize their own interests. When disasters hit countries like Pakistan, there is only one option: borrow to rebuild. Yet rebuilding marks the start of a deeper crisis. The UN Climate Change report found that climate-vulnerable countries have already paid an additional $40-62 billion in interest over the past decade. The floods are only the trigger; the real crisis is the debt trap that follows, rarely making headlines.
Behind this unequal climate burden lies the question of responsibility. Who should pay for a crisis they did not create? The answer begins with those that contributed most to it. Reports from Our World in Data shows that the US is responsible for nearly 25 percent of historical emissions, more than any other country. This record increased hopes that Washington would lead the global climate action, but they turned back. The US has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, cut down on international financing, and cancelled several energy-transition agreements worth billions of dollars for developing nations. In terms of domestic policies, it has increased the production of fossil fuels, with crude oil production having reached an all-time high of 13.84 million barrels per day in 2025.
Concurrently, China holds an uncomfortable dual role in the climate story. It is fueling emissions while simultaneously leading the world’s renewable energy race. According to Our World in Data, China is the world’s largest annual emitter, contributing nearly 33% of annual emissions, but is still behind the US in terms of per capita and historical emissions. International Energy agency reports found that, Beijing invested nearly $630 billion in clean energy in 2025 and provided about $24.5 billion in climate finance to developing countries since 2016. Even then, coal still makes up 58% of China’s electricity production. Analysts describe this as “deliberate misdirection or policy incoherence.”
The European Union, meanwhile, has responded to climate emergencies with legislation. It carries a substantial portion of historical emissions, but has now promised to reduce carbon production to 90 percent by 2040. It also remains the largest public contributor to global climate finance. Yet Europe’s climate leadership is not without contradictions. Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), introduced in 2026, is designed to boost Europe’s green energy transition, which could mean that exporters from developing countries would be forced to pay more to comply with new climate policies. But for the states already prone to climate risks; this transition is becoming another financial burden.
Few countries reveal the contradictions of global climate politics as clearly as Russia. The country’s “2025 Energy Strategy” keeps coal at nearly ten times the level of wind and solar energy until 2050, earning a “Critically Insufficient” rating from the Climate Action Tracker. Moscow, instead of confronting global warming, is capitalizing on its consequences. Melting of the Arctic will unlock new maritime routes, while also providing Russia with access to vast energy reserves. Thus, when strict environmental rules are imposed at home, many polluting industries relocate their production to developing countries. As a result, they supply carbon-intensive production through Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). A pattern described by researchers as the “pollution haven effect”, where emissions are relocated rather than reduced.
Pakistan reflects the human consequences of this unequal climate burden. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres mentioned that Pakistan is responsible for less than 1% of global emissions, but it remains among the world’s most climate vulnerable nations. Since late June 2026, monsoon rains have claimed 121 lives, according to Reuters. While there is no doubt that the country is still recovering from the 2025 floods that displaced 2.9 million people. State Bank of Pakistan have reported that the extreme weather events have already cost Pakistan nearly $59 billion over the past three decades. Even after pledging to provide $10 billion at the Geneva Conference, Pakistan received less than half by 2025, where most of the fund arrived as loans rather than grants. The pollution was exported, while the debt stayed behind.
What Pakistan needs is not sympathy, but accountability. Under the COP27 agreement, the Loss and Damage Fund should be granted based on the scale of the disaster, and not on promises that leave the already fragile nations waiting. Ostensibly, Pakistan should revive its climate policy rather than looking forward to developed nations. They should strictly enforce floodplain laws and improve urban drainage system. Nevertheless, the bitter irony remains that those least responsible for climate crisis are paying the highest price.
—The writer is associated with Institute of strategic Studies Islamabad.
