Why has the response to Nepal’s floods been so muted?

Ao vivo Clique aqui para pesquisar Clique aqui para pesquisar Inscreva-se OPINIÃOOPINIÃO, Opinião|Crise Climática Por que a resposta às inundações do Nepal tem sido tão contida.

1. Al Jazeera Centre for Public Liberties & Human Rights.
2. Why has the response to Nepal’s floods been so muted? | Climate Crisis | Al Jazeera Skip linksSkip to Contentplay Live Sign upShow navigation menuNavigation menu.

Porque as nações ricas não querem assumir a responsabilidade pelo seu papel na atual crise climática.

And yet, despite considerable media and public attention, the international political response has remained strikingly muted.

We have heard some condolence messages from foreign governments, along with emergency supplies and pledges of help. These matter. But the response mainly targeted immediate humanitarian aid.

Por que a resposta tem sido tão inadequada? Por que poucos líderes políticos se manifestaram sobre este desastre com a urgência que sua escala exige.

Nebal está cada vez mais enquadrando as inundações não apenas como outra catástrofe causada pelo clima, mas como consequência de uma crise climática à qual o país contribuiu quase nada.

Isso aponta para uma desigualdade mais profunda da crise climática.

For over a century, wealthy countries have consumed a vastly disproportionate share of the atmosphere’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. They grew their economies through industrialisation driven by fossil fuel consumption.

Entretanto, países como o Nepal tiveram pouca chance de usar algo que se aproximasse de uma parcela equivalente desse espaço atmosférico.

The result shows a stark divide between those who benefitted disproportionately from burning fossil fuels and those who face growing consequences.

Nepal has argued that international support to deal with climate catastrophe is not a charity. It must be climate justice. It has asked the United Nations’ Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage for urgent support, and the fund’s board is now considering how to respond.

That changes the political conversation. And it takes us back to the bargain struck in Paris a decade ago.

Developing countries fought hard for the international climate regime under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to recognise “loss and damage” or the destruction that cannot simply be prevented through mitigation or adapted to.

Eles garantiram seu reconhecimento no Artigo 8 do Acordo de Paris.

Mas os países ricos traçaram uma linha em torno do que esse reconhecimento poderia significar. O texto da decisão adotado junto ao Acordo de Paris afirma que o Artigo 8 “não envolve nem fornece base para qualquer responsabilidade ou compensação”.

It was a strange political bargain: the world could acknowledge climate-related loss and damage, but that acknowledgement could not lead to demands for compensation.

Nepal is now testing the limits of that bargain.

The legal picture is more complicated than simply saying that the Paris Agreement prohibits climate compensation. In 2025, the International Court of Justice ruled that countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate system; if they fail their obligations, they are liable for reparations or compensation for the damage they have caused.

A decisão despertou atenção renovada às questões sobre responsabilidade estatal sob o direito internacional.

But there is another issue: the traditional international system for supporting developing countries is itself shrinking. At precisely the time climate losses are mounting, official development assistance is falling.

It plummeted by 23. 1 percent in 2025, the largest annual contraction on record. Humanitarian assistance also fell sharply.

E o problema não é simplesmente que há pouca ajuda.

For decades, the global economy has transferred enormous amounts of wealth and resources through unequal economic ties between the Global North and the Global South.

Climate finance won’t fix that imbalance if it simply returns a fraction of that wealth as loans or private investment options.

Um país não deveria ter que recorrer a empréstimos para se livrar de um desastre climático que pouco contribuiu para criar.

Nem a compensação pode substituir a mitigação. Países ricos não podem continuar consumindo uma parcela desproporcional da energia e dos recursos materiais do mundo enquanto ignoram as consequências em outros lugares.

They must rapidly reduce their own emissions and ecological overconsumption.

The muted response to the floods in Nepal therefore raises a larger question about international cooperation.

Perhaps the world is comfortable acknowledging the growing cost of the climate crisis. It is much less comfortable when countries affected ask whether the costs should be borne by those who contributed most to creating the crisis.

As avenidas para mudar isso já existem: o Fundo de Resposta a Perdas e Danos, as negociações climáticas da ONU e o corpo em evolução do direito internacional sobre responsabilidade climática.

What is missing is the political recognition that the costs of climate destruction cannot indefinitely be treated as somebody else’s problem.

Se justiça climática significa algo, ela deve eventualmente incluir reparações pelos danos causados por uma apropriação desigual dos bens comuns atmosféricos.

That conversation can no longer be postponed.

As opiniões expressas neste artigo são de autoria própria e não refletem necessariamente a linha editorial da Al Jazeera.

Advertisement ConnectConnectShow more Our ChannelsOur ChannelsShow more Our NetworkOur NetworkShow more Follow Al Jazeera English.