Across the developing world, the impact of climate change has become increasingly uneven, with Pakistan emerging as one of the most severely affected countries. Not only does farmland become inundated thereby affecting food security, the education of thousands of children gets disrupted further aggravating an already low literacy rate, and to make matters worse, those affected have to navigate survival in an inflation-stricken economy of Pakistan. It is important to note however, that Pakistan is not to be blamed solely for being vulnerable to these disasters since it contributes ‘less than one percent’ to greenhouse emissions. The dilemma therefore, is primarily that of responsibility; why does Pakistan have to suffer for the actions of others especially, when international law is crystal clear on the obligations of all states to protect the climate system and the environment.
While it is true that the civil society organisations; operating internationally and nationally, have attempted to engage both the Government of Pakistan, and other states in responding to the climate crisis, advocacy alone cannot compensate for the absence of political will, adequate climate financing, and accountability on the part of those states most responsible for its causes. Moving on, this paper will first examine the devastating impact that climate-induced disasters have had on Pakistan in recent years, highlighting the disproportionate burden borne by a state which contributes a mere negligible share of global greenhouse gas emissions. It will then explore the question of responsibility by analysing the role of developed nations whose historical and contemporary contributions to environmental degradation have significantly expedited the climate crisis. Having identified the sources of the problem, the paper turns to the concept of climate justice and evaluates the growing calls for climate reparations, loss and damage financing, and international accountability. The discussion subsequently considers Pakistan’s own responsibilities, reparations, including the need for stronger environmental governance, judicial oversight, institutional reform, and the more effective utilisation of national resources. Finally, the paper concludes by reaffirming its central argument that Pakistan’s severe climate vulnerability, despite contributing only a negligible share of global greenhouse gas emissions, reflects a profound climate injustice that demands greater accountability from major emitters.
Climate Catastrophe in Pakistan:
The terrible floods of 2022, which were called one of the worst in the country’s history, affected more than 33 million people, forced millions to leave their homes, and destroyed homes, infrastructure, and farms. As a result, The Natural Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) declared the catastrophic floods a national emergency. From mid-June till December 2022, at least 1208 people died, including 416 children, as well as 6082 injured. Because of our impoverished base, this unexpected calamity has drowned away about one-third of Pakistan amid a prodigious amount of rainfall. Although the whole country faced the consequences, the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan suffered the most. Sindh witnessed the devastation of 23 districts, and thousands of houses were reported to be wrecked with more than 700 people injured, out of which at least 239 have died across the province. Balochistan also witnessed damage to the infrastructure with nearly 166 people injured and more than 263 dead. Due to this widespread demolition of people’s homes, more than half a million people resorted to living in relief camps across the country. Reports state that almost four-fifths of the total crops in Sindh were damaged, which accounts for roughly one-third of Pakistan’s total cotton crop. As a quarter of Pakistan’s gross domestic product is based on the agriculture sector, the economy was bound to take a hit in an already suffering country, further aggravating the problem. Inflation touched 27.3% in August 2022 due to shrinking foreign exchange reserves, this extensive damage left Pakistan in an economic crisis with the loss of around ten billion dollars.
More recently, in mid-2025, there was an unprecedented wave of cloudbursts and
flash floods that overwhelmed wide areas of Northern Pakistan. Rainfall drastically increased in the Swat region, reportedly accumulating greater than 300mm each day in some areas of the Swat forest, whereas past averages of precipitation in the terrain during the month of August were in the range of 65-90 mm. Satellite photos, on-site observations and media evaluation proved that the floods in the Swat and Chitral districts caused tremendous damage as thousands of houses were destroyed, farmlands were swept away, and complete villages were cut off. To illustrate, the authorities in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) have reported at least 60 deaths at some point in the course of a 24-hour period because of a cloudburst- induced flood in the mid-August of 2025. In a single episode of cloudburst-rain, in the agriculture department of KP, the amount of land lost in agriculture came to more than 31596 acres, and more than 26,000 of this lost land was in Buner alone.
At the Pakistan International Wildlife and ECO Film Festival in 2025, The Federal Minister for Climate Change and Environmental Coordination, Dr. Musadiq Malik, while delivering his address, warned that if current trends continue Pakistan’s GDP could decline by 18-20% by 2050 due to extreme weather events, environmental degradation, and related challenges. He noted that the impacts of climate change extend beyond the environment, affecting food security, public health, livelihoods, and the survival of coastal communities. The Minister underscored the urgent need for comprehensive climate adaptation strategies, including investments in resilient infrastructure, improved water management systems, enhanced disaster preparedness, and the promotion of climate-smart agriculture. Pakistan’s experience shows how important it is to have effective climate diplomacy right now, especially when it comes to getting funding for loss and damage and improving regional cooperation on managing water across borders. Climate-related disasters are becoming more common and they have no interest in political borders, so collective action must be taken to find solutions.
Who is Responsible?
Viewing the climate crisis in Pakistan with an introspective lens, the central question is simple: why does a country responsible for less than one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions continue to bear a disproportionate share of the climate crisis? According to the main findings of the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research’s (EDGAR) greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of all world countries 2025 report; China, the United States, India, Russia and Indonesia were the world’s largest GHG emitters in 2024. Together they account for 51.4% of global population, 62.5% of global gross domestic product, 64.2% of global fossil fuel consumption and 61.8% of global GHG emissions. While climate change is undoubtedly a shared global challenge, the available emissions data makes it difficult to deny the truth that responsibility for the climate crisis is distributed unevenly. The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) landmark advisory opinion on climate change was delivered last year in July 2025, where the ICJ clarified the legal obligations of all states under international law to guard the climate system and environment from human-driven greenhouse gas emissions. The obligations include protecting the climate system and the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The Court emphasised that states must take appropriate measures to mitigate climate change, regulate activities within their jurisdiction that contribute to environmental harm, cooperate internationally in addressing the crisis, and support efforts aimed at adaptation and resilience. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that climate change is not merely a political concern but a matter of legal responsibility under international law. While the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement establish obligations on all parties, they recognize that such obligations may differ depending on parties’ economic situations, their historic contribution to anthropogenic GHG emissions and their capabilities to adapt to and mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change. For instance, Article 3, paragraph 1, of the UNFCCC states that “developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”, and Article 3, paragraph 2, of the UNFCCC states that full consideration should be given to “[t]he specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties”.
Thus, for countries such as Pakistan, the significance of climate responsibility is clear. The UNFCCC framework advises developed states, owing to their historical contributions to the greenhouse gas emissions, greater economic capacity, and better ability to respond to the climate challenge, to assume a leading role in combating this crisis and to assist the vulnerable states in adapting to its consequences. However, the findings of the EDGAR 2025 report suggest a significant gap between this expectation and contemporary reality. Despite occupying a position of leadership under the international climate regime, many of the above-mentioned world’s largest emitters continue to account for a disproportionate share of global greenhouse gas emissions, thereby worsening the very crisis they are expected to help mitigate.
Beyond Victimhood: Pakistan’s Climate Responsibilities:
While the unequal distribution of global greenhouse emissions strengthens Pakistan’s claim for climate justice, it does not exonerate the country of its own duties in addressing this crisis. Pakistan has its own share of environmental and governance challenges, which prevent it from being portrayed solely as the victim. Deforestation, weak environmental governance, unsustainable urban expansion, inadequate waste management systems, corruption, and poor enforcement of environmental regulations have all contributed to increasing the country’s exposure to climate-related disasters. The Government must take further initiatives to acknowledge the seriousness of the climate crisis and respond accordingly. The Breathe Pakistan Climate Conference is a positive example of how diverse stakeholders can be brought together to discuss climate solutions, but meaningful progress ultimately depends upon the effective implementation of the ideas and commitments that emerge from such events. Nevertheless, it is equally important to realise that even if Pakistan were to address its domestic shortcomings entirely, the country would remain highly vulnerable to the consequences of a climate crisis driven principally by emissions generated beyond its borders. Stronger governance, improved environmental regulation, and sustainable forestation would undeniably reduce Pakistan’s vulnerability, but they cannot, on their own, prevent rising temperatures, extreme weather events such as floods, or other transboundary effects of global climate change. Hence, domestic action and international accountability must be viewed as complementary rather than competing responses to the crisis.
Climate Reparations:
While determining responsibility remains an important aspect of achieving climate justice, the crisis itself has advanced far beyond the stage where attributing blame alone can provide meaningful relief. The floods have already occurred, communities have already been displaced, and people have already suffered far too greatly. The pressing question is therefore no longer who caused the problem, but how the resulting damage can be addressed. In this regard, the principle underlying climate reparations is relatively straightforward: those states responsible for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions should contribute more towards assisting states which disproportionately bear the consequences of a crisis they did little to create. This idea is reflected in international climate negotiations through concepts such as “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities” (CBDR), climate finance commitments, and the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27. For Pakistan, climate reparations should not be viewed as a form of charity, but rather as a matter of equity and corrective justice. The concept of climate reparations should involve a political and moral acknowledgment of historical mischief. Reparations provide such countries as Pakistan with access to non debt loans, technological transfer, and capacity building to endure. Nevertheless, instead of redistributive justice, the contemporary global response is still dominated by market related practices, including carbon trading, offset programs, and green loans. Even though these tools are designed to be considered as green solutions, in many cases they allow developed nations to continue polluting at the expense of developing nations. It can be argued that climate reparations must be considered within the broader context of global capitalism, with the processes that have triggered the climate crisis persisting to operate the solutions to the climate crisis. This imbalance in the system must be countered until climate justice becomes a transformative reality.
Climate reparations, however, cannot be viewed as a solution in isolation. Financial support from major emitting states is undoubtedly necessary, but it must be accompanied by meaningful reforms within vulnerable countries themselves. Ultimately, climate justice is a shared responsibility.
Despite Pakistan’s severe climate vulnerability, the judiciary has increasingly emerged as an important actor in dealing with the climate crisis and environmental justice. In Haroon Farooq v Government of Punjab (2025 CLC 280), the Honourable Lahore High Court under Mr. Justice Shahid Karim employed a unique tool; a supervisory role in addressing environmental degradation and smog-related challenges in Punjab. Through continuing mandamus, the Court monitored and enforced compliance through a commission established for implementation. The departments in turn, returned with reports of compliance to the court orders and further orders were issued for complete climate justice and to protect the fundamental rights of people. Practical climate measures were pursued, including the conversion of brick kilns to zig-zag technology, enforcement against stubble burning, promotion of public transport and electric mobility, large-scale plantation initiatives, and the promulgation of the Smog Rules 2023. The Court also declared smog a “calamity,” assigning the Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) a leading enforcement role. These developments illustrate how judicial intervention can move beyond symbolic judgments and contribute towards the practical enforcement of climate justice. The case demonstrates how judicial innovation and sustained interference can play a meaningful role in addressing environmental governance failures globally.
Nevertheless, despite its growing significance, judicial intervention in climate governance remains limited in scope. Courts can only act within the confines of cases that are brought before them, typically through public interest litigation, and therefore cannot independently initiate enforcement in the absence of a petition. With the narrowing of suo moto powers, this limitation becomes even more prominent in the context of a crisis as wide-reaching as climate change. This makes it clear that while the judiciary can play an important role, it cannot carry the burden of climate governance alone. In this regard, strengthening public interest litigation frameworks and encouraging proactive legal engagement could help bridge the gap. For example, legislative reforms could be considered requiring senior practitioners, such as lawyers with over ten years of experience, to dedicate a proportion of their practice to public interest and environmental litigation, which would expand access to climate justice beyond the courtroom’s procedural limitations.
Conclusion: Climate Justice and Unequal Responsibility:
In conclusion, this paper has examined the uneven burden of climate change in Pakistan through the lens of responsibility, vulnerability, and environmental justice. While Pakistan continues to suffer severe climate-induced disasters despite contributing less than one percent to global greenhouse gas emissions, it is also acknowledged that domestic challenges such as weak environmental governance, deforestation, and institutional inefficiencies have further intensified its exposure to risk. However, even if these shortcomings were fully addressed, they would not significantly alter Pakistan’s fundamental vulnerability to a climate crisis driven largely by external emissions. This reality reinforces the central argument of this paper: Pakistan bears a disproportionate share of the consequences of a crisis it did little to create. Therefore, while domestic action remains necessary, meaningful climate justice ultimately depends on greater accountability from major emitting states and a more equitable global response to climate change.
