Countries that have achieved economic prosperity by emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases for a long time cannot be limited to reducing emissions in the future. They must also face the question of taking responsibility for a part of the damage caused today due to those past emissions.

There is a debate over the word ‘compensation’. Many in developed countries want to see climate finance as a continuation of development aid. On the other hand, affected countries argue that getting money for damage they did not cause due to the climate crisis is not kindness. It should be part of a fair international system.

The difference between the two positions is very important. Aid usually depends on the goodwill of the donor. But compensation depends on liability. When asking for aid, the poor country is a beneficiary; but when it demands fair compensation, it speaks of its rights. This change in language is very important in climate politics.

Of course, there is a hard reality here. It is not possible to hold any specific country responsible for the entire damage of every flood, cyclone or landslide in the world. In addition to climate change, local topography, deforestation, unplanned urbanization, weak infrastructure or a lack of disaster management can also make a disaster more severe.  Therefore, an effective compensation system should not be based on emotions, but on scientific evidence, historical emissions, current emissions, economic viability and the scale of damage.

But this complexity does not negate the need for compensation. On the contrary, it shows that we need a more fair and effective international system.