Why has the response to Nepal’s floods been so muted?

It has been three weeks since the collapse of a glacier and rock mass from the Langtang Lirung mountain triggered devastating floods in Nepal’s Bhotekoshi and Trishuli valleys. Officials have confirmed the loss of more than 1,380 precious lives, while around 5,100 remain missing. The disaster shattered thousands of homes and wiped out vital infrastructure.

Nepal government’s rapid assessment estimates that full recovery and long-term reconstruction will need $4.7bn. That is roughly 10 percent of Nepal’s annual gross domestic product (GDP), and more than a third of its federal budget.

And yet, despite considerable media and public attention, the international political response has remained strikingly muted.

We have heard some condolence messages from foreign governments, along with emergency supplies and pledges of help. These matter. But the response mainly targeted immediate humanitarian aid. For instance, the United States pledged $3.6m, the United Kingdom $6m, and the European Union $2.3m. But these meagre funds cannot meet the needs of affected communities and provide them with the shelter, food and infrastructure to survive the winter.

Why has the response been so inadequate? Why have so few political leaders spoken up about this disaster with the urgency its scale demands?

Part of the answer may lie in an uncomfortable question Nepal has now put directly on the table: who should pay for climate loss and damage ?

Nepal is increasingly framing the floods not simply as another weather-induced catastrophe, but as a consequence of a climate crisis to which the country contributed almost nothing.

For over a century, wealthy countries have consumed a vastly disproportionate share of the atmosphere’s capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. They grew their economies through industrialisation driven by fossil fuel consumption. Meanwhile, countries like Nepal got little chance to use anything approaching an equivalent share of that atmospheric space.