It is in the West's interest to prevent nations' climate destruction – as well as its duty

Independent

25-05-2025

It is doubly tragic that the very countries most damaged by climate change are often also some of the poorest, and thus least able to cope with its terrifying effects. This has been, or should have been, clear for some time.
At successive climate conferences such as the Paris summit and the Cop series, island states threatened by rising sea levels and sub-Saharan nations suffering accelerating desertification, for example, have pleaded with the West and the emerging industrial economies to restrain greenhouse gas emissions and – of more immediate importance – help with measures to mitigate and defend against the effects of long-term alterations in weather systems. Now, research undertaken for The Independent 's Rethinking Global Aid project by ODI Global, a think tank, reveals the extent to which recent and continuing cuts in international aid programmes are leaving the world's most vulnerable communities defenceless in the face of existential challenges.
The case studies, which we report on today, are graphic and compelling. Somalia, a nation long broken by political violence and terrorism, has lost billions of pounds worth of agricultural production as previously productive lands are left barren by higher temperatures and lower rainfall. That compounds an already dire lack of economic resources for the state to support itself, forces people to move to other places to find a living, and adds to the global migration crisis, just as it has across a broad band of the continent, from the Sahel and the Horn of Africa.
Or take the distressing example of Dominica, a peaceful Commonwealth nation where the proportional impact of climate change on its economy is even larger. The ODI research suggests that it has lost a tenth of its GDP to anthropogenic warming. Haiti and Grenada are other Caribbean countries that have also had to deal with extreme weather events and devastating hurricanes – but without the resources that enable their wealthier neighbours, notably the United States, to put defences in place and recover from disaster. Poorer countries, by contrast, are not recovering and are being increasingly deprived of the means to look after themselves. It bears repeating that none of these developing economies is an industrial power. They did not enjoy the benefits of economic growth that plentiful and cheap fossil fuels brought through successive industrial revolutions, nor the high living standards that prevail in the nations still most profligate in their use of nature's bounty.
The aggregate figures calculated by ODI Global are difficult to comprehend but point to a huge toll on human misery. The ODI study covered 53 low-income countries, including 36 small-island developing states in the Caribbean, Pacific and the Atlantic, and 17 countries in the Sahel and the Greater Horn of Africa. Since the year 2000, these countries have suffered $395bn in losses and damages from extreme weather events, some $156bn of which can be attributed to the climate crisis. This work, therefore, is not 'climate alarmism' but a sober, realistic assessment of the effects of what is happening. It's also a call to action for richer nations, troubled as they are, to face their responsibilities, as well as to act in their own self-interest.
Fairness, therefore, demands that the rich countries should do more to assist the poorer citizens of the world to mitigate the effects of climate change. Mike Childs, head of policy at Friends of the Earth, puts this point well: 'If the UK suffered tens of billions of pounds worth of damage caused by other countries' actions, our government and the public would rightfully be shouting from the rooftops about the injustice.'
Instead, of course, we have seen the United States abolish its development agency and many of its aid projects. Even European nations previously relatively generous in their approach, such as the UK, have pared back spending due to domestic political pressures and the growing spectre of Russian expansionism.
Yet it is very much in the interest of the rich world, broadly speaking the global North, to prevent nations from being destroyed by famine, flood and general economic dislocation – which itself can trigger armed conflicts. The most obvious and pressing reason for maintaining as much international development effort as possible is the prospect of yet more flows of refugees crossing continents, movements of people which are already at historic levels and have caused political turmoil in advanced economies unwilling or unable to take them in. The most alarming prospect is presented by Bangladesh, where some 20 million people could be displaced by flooding of their homes by 2050.
Recent crises such as the Covid pandemic, wars and the spike in energy prices have made the global North more preoccupied with its own problems and pushed the environment down the agenda. Yet the climate crisis has not disappeared, and the efforts to achieve net zero emissions of greenhouse gases should remain a goal for the whole of humanity. Climate change is, and should be, a transcendent issue. It is still not too late to avert the ultimate catastrophe of unpredictable climate breakdown.
Alongside such global efforts, though, are smaller-scale projects that can prevent communities in imminent jeopardy of destruction from reaching something like a sustainable future. Sadly, the hurricanes, the droughts, the flooding and the failed harvests will continue, whatever happens – and it falls to the world's most powerful economies to try to mitigate the consequences. It's for the good of all.