Climate action demands global fraternity
The existential threat of the climate crisis casts a long shadow over our planet. Its effects are not equally distributed: vulnerable countries, particularly small island developing states (SIDS) like mine, are on the front lines. We must contend with rising sea levels, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and the destruction of our livelihoods. To address these challenges and strengthen the resilience of our people and systems, many leaders, including me, have had to reshape policies and reconceive the relationship between government and the governed.
While sea-level rise could directly affect 250 million people by the end of this century, it is already a lived reality for tens of millions in low-lying coastal countries and SIDS. Elsewhere, people are plagued by prolonged droughts and fires. These forces are putting our territories, economies, and very existence at risk, and countering them requires not only urgent action, but also a fundamental shift in our global consciousness – a recognition of our shared humanity and intertwined fate. Simply put, this crisis demands global solidarity.
As a 2025 honoree of the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity, I believe that recognizing our responsibility to care for one another is an essential element of the climate response and as important as scientific, technological, financial, and diplomatic measures. Just as a family supports its most vulnerable members, so, too, must the global community rally around those countries bearing the brunt of a crisis they did little to create.
As it stands, the global financial architecture is ill-equipped to address the climate crisis. It was designed for a different era that did not contemplate the interconnectedness of our economies and ecosystems or the dangers of global warming. The Bretton Woods institutions, for example, were established more than 80 years ago to help European economies recover from World War II.
But the unprecedented scale and urgency of the climate crisis requires a new approach to unlock the financing that developing countries need for mitigation and adaptation. The system must be reformed to make sustainable development, climate resilience, and equitable access to finance its top priorities. This is not charity; it is an investment in our collective future. When some people are left to die, all of humanity – present and future – will eventually suffer.
The Bridgetown Initiative, which many vulnerable countries have championed, calls for multilateral development banks to expand their lending capacity and to ensure that their risk-assessment frameworks reflect the realities of climate vulnerability. It also advocates increased concessional finance, recognising that grants and low-interest loans are essential for countries struggling to cope with the climate emergency. And the initiative proposes innovative mechanisms like debt-for-nature and debt-for-climate swaps, offering a path to debt relief while generating the financial resources vulnerable countries need to take ownership of their climate transitions and build more resilient economies and societies.
But finance alone is not enough. A paradigm shift is needed in how we understand development, moving from the narrow pursuit of GDP growth to a more holistic approach that values social justice, environmental sustainability, and human well-being. This requires a fundamental rethink of our economic models. Infinite growth on a finite planet is simply not possible. We must embrace a circular economy that improves resource efficiency, minimises waste, and promotes sustainable consumption.
Such a shift ultimately hinges on global fraternity. We must recognise that, in an interconnected world, our actions have consequences for others, and that protecting our planet is a shared responsibility. That means equitably distributing the burden of climate change, so that those who have contributed the least to the problem do not suffer its worst effects.
Leading a small island country like Barbados has taught me valuable lessons about the power of community and resilience, as well as the importance of long-term vision. We have learned the hard way how to adapt to changing climate conditions and innovate in the face of adversity. And we have come to realize the value of empowering communities to take ownership of adaptation efforts, and of nature-based solutions in building resilience. These lessons, born of necessity, are not unique to Barbados; they can guide all countries, regardless of size or wealth, towards a more sustainable future.
I have often said that the world looks to SIDS for leadership on the climate crisis not because we are rich or powerful, but because we have no choice but to lead. The unavoidable truth is that we can no longer stand alone: everyone must join the fight to safeguard the planet for generations to come.
More than an environmental issue, the climate crisis is a global challenge that demands a collective response. We cannot afford to be divided by national borders, political ideologies, or economic interests. This is a profound test of our shared humanity, and we will need global solidarity – ordinary people taking action every day – to pass it. @Project Syndicate, 2025
The writer is Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Barbados and a 2025 honoree of the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
2 days ago
- Observer
Is Europe facing civil war?
Whether the debate is occasioned by a polemical book or a movie like last year's 'Civil War', I consistently take the negative on the question of whether the United States is headed for a genuine civil war. In those debates, it's usually liberals warning that populism or Trumpism is steering the United States towards the abyss. But with European politics the pattern is different: In France and Britain; and among American observers of the continent, a preoccupation with looming civil war tends to be more common among conservatives. For years, figures associated with the French right and French military have warned of an impending civil conflict driven by the country's failure to assimilate immigrants from the Muslim world. (The great reactionary novelist Michel Houellebecq's 'Submission' famously imagines this war being averted by the sudden conversion of French elites to Islam.) Lately there has been a similar discussion around Britain touched off by an essay by military historian David Betz that argues that multicultural Britain is in danger of tearing itself apart and lately taken up by political strategist, Brexit-campaign architect and former Boris Johnson adviser Dominic Cummings in an essay warning that British elites are increasingly fearful of organised violence from nativists and radicalised immigrants alike. When I've written skeptically about scenarios for a US civil war, I've tended to stress several realities: the absence of a clear geographical division between our contending factions; the diminishment, not exacerbation, of racial and ethnic polarisation in the Trump era; the fact that we're rich, aging and comfortable, not poor, young and desperate, giving even groups that hate each other a stake in the system and elites strong reasons to sustain it; the absence of enthusiasm for organised communal violence as opposed to lone-wolf forays. Does the European landscape look different? On some fronts, maybe. Tensions between natives and new arrivals are common on both sides of the Atlantic, but ethnic and religious differences arguably loom larger in Europe than they do in the US: There is more intense cultural separatism in immigrant communities in suburban Paris or Marseilles than in Los Angeles or Chicago, more simmering discontent that easily turns to riots. At the same time, British and French elites have been more successful than American elites at keeping populist forces out of power, but their tools — not just the exclusion of populists from government, but an increasingly authoritarian throttling of free speech — have markedly diminished their own legitimacy among discontented natives. This means that neither underassimilated immigrants nor working-class whites feel especially invested in the system, making multiple forms of political violence more plausible: pitting immigrant or native rebels against the government, or pitting immigrants against natives with the government trying to suppress the conflict, or, finally, pitting different immigrant groups against one another. (English cities have already played host to bursts of Muslim-Hindu violence.) Then, too, Western Europe's economies have grown more sluggishly than America's for the last decade, reducing ordinary people's stake in the current order and encouraging alienation and resistance. Finally, there are arguably geographic concentrations of discontent — in the north of England, or in immigrant-dominated cities that Betz warns could become ungovernable — that don't exist in quite the same way in the US. All of this adds up, I would say, to a useful corrective to the progressive tendency to regard America in the Trump era as a great outlier, uniquely divided and deranged and threatened by factional strife, while liberal politics continues more or less as usual among our respectable and stable European allies. Not so: There are clearly ways in which Europe's problems and divides are deeper than our own, with economic and demographic trends that portend darker possibilities and the establishment attempt to keep populist forces at bay may end up remembered as accelerating liberal Europe's downfall. Yet many of the reasons to doubt the imminence of civil war in America still apply to Western Europe. The continent is more stagnant than the US but still rich, comfortable and aged; there's enthusiasm for rioting but rather less for organised violence; and for all the palpable disillusionment, it is hard to glimpse any elite faction yet emerging — right or left, nativist or 'Islamo-Gauchiste' — that would see violent revolution as an obvious means to its ambitions. Meanwhile, there are distinctive European conditions that make civil war less likely there than in the US: Smaller nations with more centralised political systems generally find it easier to police dissent and there's no Second Amendment or American-style gun culture to challenge the European state's monopoly on force. Ultimately, I agree with British writer Aris Roussinos, a pessimist but not a catastrophist, when he writes that the most likely near-future scenarios involve increasing 'outbursts of violent disorder' but not the kind of collapse of central government authority, complete with ethnic cleansing and refugee flows, that the language of 'civil war' implies. And that imprecision matters: As I've suggested before, if you use a civil-war framing to describe a world where rioting is more commonplace and assassination attempts and random forms of terrorism make a comeback, you're describing realities that big diverse societies often have to live with, using terms that misleadingly or hysterically evoke Antietam or Guernica. I don't think America in the 1960s and 1970s experienced a civil war, even though those were certainly chaotic decades. I don't think modern France, with its long tradition of student protests and urban riots, has existed in a perpetual state of civil war. And as we face a future that's clearly more destabilised than the post-Cold War era, it still behooves us to be realistic about the most plausible scenarios: We are still far more likely to be navigating a more chaotic landscape together, as fellow citizens, than shooting at one another across a sectional divide. — The New York Times
Observer
3 days ago
- Observer
Businesses welcomed the UK-EU Brexit ‘reset'
Prime Minister Kier Starmer will be pleased about his catch in international diplomacy: a trade deal with the European Union, which the government hopes will boost the chances of achieving higher growth. In an agreement that hands EU boats continued rights in British seas until 2038, slashing red tape on food checks and increasing cooperation on defence and migration, businesses are getting a sense of whether this deal may be sweet – or sound all too fishy. For the opposition political parties, the Conservatives and Reform Party, the Prime Minister has utterly betrayed Britain's fishing industry. The right to control Britain's waters was a clear prize of Brexit. Yet, under this deal, British fishermen will never know what it means to manage the fisheries of an independent country. EU excess has been extended and the economic future of Britain's coastal communities has once again been sacrificed, the opposition say. Furthermore, the UK has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to sweep away the EU- originated rules that suppress innovation, productivity and growth. Yet, this deal binds Britain back into precisely those constraints on agriculture, preventing the regulatory freedom that would allow Britain to thrive as an agile, competitive economy. However, Business groups and their members have welcomed the deal, but professor Stephen Miller, director at the National Institute of Economic Social Research, said that, economically the cuts in red tape secured were not likely to put much additional cash in people's pockets. Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer shakes hands with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen at the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, in this file photo. — Reuters 'This agreement is unlikely to 'shift the dial' in the sense that the gains are small relative to the single market or customs union,' he said. While the gains may be 'small', and despite agreements on areas such as a youth mobility scheme or defence lacking detail, industry groups are largely upbeat about the opportunities presented by EU and UK officials. The chief executive of Britain's biggest business lobby, the Confederation of British Industry, suggested the new deal was a 'leap forward' amid difficult times. 'The bleak global trading environment – from escalating geopolitical tensions to sluggish growth – has underscored the importance of deepening ties with trusted, like-minded partners,' Rain Newton-Smith said. This sentiment has been repeated by leading executives at the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) where leaders have said agreements will keep costs down and enrich British companies looking to import cheaper produce or export goods to European markets. BRC chief executive Helen Dickenson said the removal of veterinary checks on food would help secure supply chains and support UK competitiveness while FSB policy chair Tina McKenzie suggested that 'bottleneck at the border' could be cleared as a result of fewer checks being made. Managing director of M&S Food, Alex Freudmann also said 'pointless' bureaucracy in trade within the UK – between Great Britain and Northern Ireland – would be removed. But some elements of the trade deal were conspicuously absent. As well as the absence of progress of youth mobility, demands made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) over the recognition of British qualifications, which are supported by other leading business groups, fell on deaf years. 'With elements not yet set in stone, there will be further effort required to ensure that what has been promised is delivered for the benefit of the UK economy, the business environment and wider business society,' said Emma Rowland, trade policy advisor at Institute of Directors (IoD). ING's James Smith suggested more negotiations on goods trade would have to be done for the OBR to raise its growth forecasts for the UK thereby easing concerns about extra tax hikes coming. 'Generally, we doubt this deal on its own will convince the OBR to change its outlook in any meaningful way,' he said.
Observer
3 days ago
- Observer
Bulgaria hails 'remarkable day' after EU green light
SOFIA: Bulgarian Prime Minister Rossen Jeliazkov said the EU's green light on Wednesday for the Balkan country to adopt the euro next year confirmed its progress. "A remarkable day. Another step forward on Bulgaria's path to the euro... This follows years of reforms, commitment and alignment with our European partners," he said in a post on X. The EU gave the green light on Wednesday for Bulgaria to adopt the euro on January 1, 2026, putting the Balkan country on course to become the 21st member of the single currency area. The European Commission said Bulgaria had fulfilled the strict criteria "intended to ensure that a country is ready to adopt the euro and that its economy is sufficiently prepared to do so". About 1,000 people demonstrated on Wednesday in front of the National Assembly building in the centre of Sofia, holding signs that read "Preserve the Bulgarian lev," "No to the euro," and "The future belongs to sovereign states." The gathering was organised by the opposition pro-Russian Vazrajdane party. — AFP
