The disastrous floods in Pakistan have prompted renewed calls for rich polluting nations to grow their economies through heavy use of fossil fuels to compensate developing countries for the devastating effects of the climate crisis.

The currently preferred term for this concept is “loss and damage” payments, but some activists want to go further and frame the issue as “climate reparations,” much like racial justice activists are calling for compensation for the descendants of enslaved people.

Beyond the stricter vocabulary, green groups are also calling for debt relief for cash-strapped nations that spend large chunks of their budgets servicing external credit, rather than directing the funds toward increasing resilience to a rapidly changing planet.

“There is historical precedent, not only for the industrial revolution that led to increased emissions and carbon pollution, but also for the history of colonialism and the history of resource, wealth and labor exploitation,” said Belgium-based climate activist Meera Ghani to AFP.

“The climate crisis is a manifestation of intertwined systems of oppression and a form of colonialism,” said Ghani, a former climate negotiator for Pakistan.

Such ideas date back decades and were first pushed by small island nations vulnerable to sea-level rise – but momentum is building once again on the back of this summer’s catastrophic floods in Pakistan, caused by unprecedented monsoon rains.

Nearly 1,600 were killed, tens of millions displaced, and the cash-strapped government estimates losses at around $30 billion.

Activists point out that the most climate-vulnerable countries in the Global South are the least responsible – Pakistan, for example, causes less than 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, in contrast to the G20 countries, which account for 80 percent.

The international climate response currently involves a two-pronged approach: “mitigation”—which means reducing heat-trapping greenhouse gases—and “adaptation,” meaning steps to change systems and improve infrastructure for changes that have already been determined.

Demands for “loss and damage” payments go beyond adaptation finance and seek compensation for the multiplication of storms that countries cannot withstand.

At present, however, the more modest goal of financing adaptation is also weakening.

Advanced economies agreed to channel $100 billion to less developed countries by 2020 – a promise that has been broken – although much of the funds mobilized came in the form of loans.

“Our starting point is that the Global North is largely responsible for the state of our planet today,” said Maira Hayat, assistant professor of environmental and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

“Why would countries that have contributed little to greenhouse gas emissions ask them for help – loans are the dominant form – with onerous repayment terms?”

“If the language is disturbing to some, the next step should be to examine why that might be – are they disputing the story? Or the contemporary implications of accepting certain historical pasts?”

Not everyone in the climate arena is convinced of this.

“Beyond a certain rhetorical score that’s not going to go anywhere,” said Daanish Mustafa, professor of critical geography at King’s College London.

While he largely blames the Global North for the world’s current situation, he is wary of pushing a narrative that can excuse the actions of Pakistani leaders and policy decisions they have made that exacerbate this and other catastrophes.

The World Weather Attribution Group of climate scientists found that climate change likely contributed to the flooding.

However, the devastating impacts were also driven “by the proximity of human settlements, infrastructure (homes, buildings, bridges) and agricultural land to flood plains,” among other locally driven factors, they said.

Pakistan’s own emissions, though low on a global scale, are rising fast — with benefits flowing to a tiny elite, Mustafa said, and the country should pursue an alternative, low-carbon development path rather than “going west.” bring” and harmful itself in the process.

The case for “loss and damage payments” recently got a boost when UN chief Antonio Guterres called for “meaningful action” at the next global climate summit, COP27 in Egypt in November.

But the issue is sensitive for rich countries – particularly the United States, the biggest emitter of GHGs – which fears paving the way for legal action and keeping language out of the landmark Paris Agreement on “liability and compensation”.