Insights

Nepal’s Climate Bill: Major Emitters Must Respond with Action

ㅣ Karl Chun Seung Yang, Founder & Executive Director of KoSIF ㅣ

Shisir Khanal, Nepal’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, described the recent catastrophic flooding on the 1^st of Sep. as a "Himalayan tsunami," demanding climate compensation from major greenhouse gas-emitting nations and declaring that "this is not a matter of charity, but of legal and moral responsibility." He emphasized that while Nepal’s emissions are virtually negligible, its people are paying the harshest price for a climate crisis they did not create. The Nepali government has gone beyond merely requesting humanitarian assistance to officially demanding "climate justice and reparations."

Nepal accounts for only about 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Having enjoyed almost none of the benefits of carbon-heavy industrialization, it is nevertheless bearing the brunt of melting glaciers, floods, and landslides. In contrast, the nations that accumulated wealth by burning fossil fuels are failing to uphold their responsibilities—either withdrawing from the Paris Agreement or doing little more than offering distant condolences and token relief supplies.

The climate crisis cannot be blamed for every aspect of this catastrophic flood; a vulnerable disaster prevention infrastructure, reckless development in high-risk areas, and inadequate early warning systems certainly amplified the damage. However, it is undeniable that the greenhouse gases accumulated by high-emitting nations have destabilized the glaciers and permafrost of the Himalayas, exacerbating disaster risks. It is patently unjust that Nepal, having contributed almost nothing to the crisis, must shoulder the concentrated burden of its consequences.

How high-emitting nations will respond to Nepal’s climate bill remains to be seen. Yet their responsibility must not be reduced to merely dispatching relief funds and supplies after disasters strike. The paramount obligation is to prevent further damage. No matter how much aid and compensation are delivered, if greenhouse gas emissions continue, Himalayan glaciers will keep melting, inevitably triggering even greater catastrophes and higher death tolls.

Therefore, the first and most vital response from high-emitting nations is to implement concrete transition plans right now. They must rapidly slash emissions, transition to a low-carbon economy, and ultimately achieve net-zero emissions to halt rising temperatures and stabilize the climate.

Major emitters—including the United States, Europe, China, India, Russia, Japan, and South Korea—cannot hide behind carbon neutrality declarations and distant net-zero promises. Concrete action and quantifiable reductions between now and 2030 matter far more than pledges for 2050. They must establish sectoral reduction targets and yearly timelines across power generation, industry, transport, and buildings, while clarifying necessary budgets, legislation, and accountable authorities. Annual performance results must be made public, with policies immediately strengthened whenever targets fall short.

New coal power plants and new oil and gas developments must be halted, and firm timelines for phasing out existing fossil fuel infrastructure must be established. Fossil fuel subsidies must be redirected toward renewable energy, power grids, energy storage systems, industrial process transitions, public transit, and building efficiency improvements. Both public and private financial institutions must cease funding overseas fossil fuel projects. Reducing domestic emissions while constructing coal and LNG facilities abroad is not a transition—it is merely the outsourcing of pollution.

The principle of "Common But Differentiated Responsibilities" under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains vital. Historical cumulative emissions, current emissions, per capita figures, and economic capabilities must all be taken into account. Nations that industrialized early, such as the United States and European countries, must reduce emissions faster and more aggressively. China, as the current largest emitter, must also assume responsibility proportional to its economic size and emissions output. While countries still grappling with development and poverty alleviation require greater flexibility in their transition, this cannot indefinitely justify massive emissions.

South Korea is no exception. It is a high-emissions manufacturing powerhouse built on fossil fuels and heavy chemical industries, as well as a major investor in overseas energy projects. While dispatching emergency relief teams to Nepal is necessary, it does not fulfill South Korea’s obligations. A policy of delaying domestic reductions, continually financing overseas LNG and fossil fuel projects, and merely sending aid workers when disaster strikes cannot be called climate accountability. Championing a "green transition" while maintaining such contradictory practices inevitably invites criticism of greenwashing.

Alongside mitigation, compensation for climate loss and damage must be delivered. High-emitting nations should provide recovery funding to Nepal in the form of grants rather than loans, and sustainably finance the Loss and Damage Fund based on historical and current emissions as well as capacity to pay. Levies should also be imposed on fossil fuel corporations that knowingly expanded oil and gas production for massive profits despite the clear risks of climate change. Furthermore, the technology and data needed for Himalayan glacier monitoring and early warning systems must be provided as global public goods.

However, reparations can never replace emissions reductions. Continuing to pollute while attempting to buy a clean conscience through monetary payments runs counter to climate justice. Reparations account for damage already done; transition is an obligation to prevent damage yet to come. High-emitting nations must fulfill both.

A world where those who emitted the least die first, while those who emitted the most substitute sympathy and modest relief funds for genuine accountability, is profoundly unjust. What Nepal delivered is not a simple plea for aid. It is an invoice sent on behalf of all humanity by frontline nations—a demand to end the fossil fuel economy and initiate real, structural change.

The most essential answer high-emitting nations can offer goes beyond words and money. It means executing a transition plan right now, equipped with tangible targets, timelines, budgets, and responsible institutions. Without stabilizing the climate, no amount of aid or compensation will ever keep pace with recurring catastrophe. South Korea cannot exempt itself from this duty to act.