05/08/2026
Climate change represents an existential threat to both Bangladesh and Tuvalu. Although these two countries differ greatly in geography, culture, and history, they share a common vulnerability: both developed during the relatively stable conditions of the Holocene, when sea levels and climate patterns remained predictable. That stability is now being disrupted by global warming and rising seas.
A significant level of climate change is already unavoidable. Even if every country fulfills its existing climate commitments, global temperatures are still expected to rise well above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. Such warming would bring substantial sea-level rise, placing Bangladesh’s low-lying Bengal Delta and Tuvalu’s small Pacific atolls at severe risk. Much of the Bengal Delta lies close to sea level, while Tuvalu’s islands rise only a few metres above the ocean. For both nations, climate change threatens land, livelihoods, and national security.
However, vulnerability is not determined by physical exposure alone. It is also shaped by a country’s ability to adapt. Wealthier nations often have far greater options: they can build protective infrastructure, reclaim land, relocate communities, and invest in technological solutions. Countries such as Bangladesh and Tuvalu have far fewer resources and therefore fewer choices. Their vulnerability is linked not only to geography but also to historical patterns of global inequality.
The scale of the challenge is unprecedented. No country has previously faced such a comprehensive threat to its territory and population. Adaptation can reduce many risks, but it cannot prevent all losses and damages. If adaptation efforts fail, the consequences for Bangladesh and Tuvalu could be catastrophic.
This situation raises fundamental questions of climate justice. Bangladesh has contributed only a small fraction of historical greenhouse gas emissions, and Tuvalu’s contribution is even smaller. By contrast, industrialised countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom account for a far larger share of cumulative emissions. Much of their wealth and development has been built through resource extraction and economic systems that have often disadvantaged developing countries.
Climate justice requires addressing these inequalities. Philosopher Nancy Fraser identifies three dimensions of justice that are particularly relevant: redistribution, representation, and recognition.
The first dimension, redistribution, concerns the fair allocation of resources and opportunities. Developing countries require far more climate finance than they currently receive. Bangladesh estimates that it needs billions of dollars annually for adaptation, while international support remains a small fraction of that amount. Similarly, adaptation costs for Tuvalu greatly exceed its available financial resources. Without significant redistribution of wealth and climate finance, vulnerable countries cannot achieve equal opportunities to protect their people.
Redistribution also applies to the remaining global carbon budget. A fair allocation of future emissions would require major reductions from countries with historically high emissions while allowing poorer countries greater space to develop. This highlights the unequal nature of the climate crisis: those who contributed least to the problem often face the greatest consequences.
The second dimension, representation, concerns who has influence in decision-making. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) allows all countries to participate, but its consensus-based system often gives powerful nations greater influence. Major emitters, wealthy countries, and powerful political blocs can delay or weaken decisions, meaning that vulnerable countries do not always have equal influence despite being among those most affected.
The third dimension, recognition, involves acknowledging historical and ongoing injustices. Bangladesh and Tuvalu have gained moral authority in climate negotiations because their vulnerability reflects a broader injustice: they are suffering from a problem they did little to create. Although international climate agreements recognise vulnerable countries, they often fail to fully acknowledge the specific harms experienced by individual nations.
The creation of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage represents an important step toward recognition justice. It acknowledges that some climate impacts cannot be avoided through adaptation alone and that vulnerable countries require support. However, the fund remains limited because developed countries have resisted framing climate assistance as compensation or accepting responsibility for historical emissions.
Recent developments in international law have strengthened arguments for climate justice. The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on states’ obligations regarding climate change established that countries have legal duties to protect the climate system and support vulnerable nations. Although the opinion is not directly binding, it provides a significant legal and moral foundation for stronger climate action.
Given the scale of the threat facing Bangladesh and Tuvalu, symbolic actions such as formal political apologies from high-emitting countries could also play a role. An apology alone cannot deliver climate justice, but acknowledging responsibility may help create the political conditions needed for greater emissions reductions, adaptation support, and cooperation.
For Bangladesh and Tuvalu, climate justice is not an abstract principle—it is central to their survival. Both countries have demonstrated leadership in adapting to climate change despite having contributed very little to the crisis. Yet they cannot solve this problem alone. Achieving climate justice requires wealthy, high-emitting countries to accept responsibility, provide meaningful support, and transform the systems that created the crisis.
The opportunity to act remains, but it is narrowing. The choices made by today’s leaders will shape not only the future of Bangladesh and Tuvalu but also the global legacy of climate action—or inaction.
Here are SAT-style reading questions based on the passage.
Question 1: Main Idea
The primary purpose of the passage is to:
A. explain why Bangladesh and Tuvalu have failed to prepare for climate change
B. argue that climate change creates a problem of global injustice requiring greater responsibility from wealthy nations
C. compare the economic development strategies of Bangladesh, Tuvalu, and Singapore
D. describe how international organizations have successfully solved climate-related problems
Question 2: Central Claim
The author’s central argument is that:
A. climate change impacts can be avoided if vulnerable countries improve their economies
B. all countries should reduce emissions equally regardless of historical responsibility
C. countries that contributed most to climate change have a greater responsibility to support vulnerable nations
D. international climate agreements should exclude developing countries from decision-making
Answer: C
Explanation: The author repeatedly emphasizes historical emissions, unequal resources, and the responsibility of major emitters.
Question 3: Vocabulary in Context
The word “implacable” most nearly means:
A. unpredictable
B. unstoppable
C. temporary
D. manageable
Question 4: Function of an Example
The author mentions Singapore primarily to:
A. show that all countries face identical climate challenges
B. demonstrate how wealth gives countries more options for adaptation
C. argue that Singapore has contributed more emissions than Bangladesh
D. prove that adaptation efforts are unnecessary
Answer: B
Explanation: Singapore is used as an example of a country with greater financial resources and more adaptation choices.
Question 5: Inference
Which of the following can be inferred about Bangladesh and Tuvalu?
A. They have made no effort to address climate change.
B. Their vulnerability is partly caused by limited economic resources.
C. They are responsible for most historical greenhouse gas emissions.
D. They oppose international cooperation on climate issues.
Question 6: Evidence-Based Question
Which sentence from the passage best supports the answer to Question 5?
A. “Both civilisations developed during the Holocene, when sea levels and the climate were relatively stable.”
B. “Development typically increases those options.”
C. “Bangladesh is responsible for around 0.2% of the total stock of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, while Tuvalu accounts for no more than 0.001%.”
D. “The UNFCCC is, in many ways, a remarkable treaty that has achieved much.”
Question 7: Purpose of the Discussion of Nancy Fraser’s Theory
The author introduces Nancy Fraser’s three dimensions of justice mainly to:
A. provide a framework for analyzing different aspects of climate injustice
B. argue that climate change is only an economic issue
C. explain why international organizations should be eliminated
D. compare different philosophical theories unrelated to climate change
Question 8: According to the passage, a major weakness of the UNFCCC is that:
A. developing countries are not allowed to participate
B. decisions often require near-unanimous agreement, giving powerful countries greater influence
C. it focuses only on economic development rather than climate issues
D. it prevents countries from receiving adaptation funding
Answer: B
Explanation: The author argues that the consensus-based system allows powerful nations to delay decisions.
Question 9: The author’s attitude toward the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) is best described as:
A. completely dismissive because the fund has no value
B. cautiously supportive because it represents recognition but remains limited
C. enthusiastic because it has solved climate injustice
D. uncertain because the fund has not yet been created
Question 10: Which choice best describes the organization of the passage?
A. It presents a historical overview of climate science before describing future predictions.
B. It identifies a problem, explains its causes, analyzes justice issues, and proposes possible solutions.
C. It compares two countries and concludes that one has better climate policies.
D. It describes international agreements and argues they have been completely successful.
Answer: B
Explanation: The passage moves from climate risks → inequality → justice framework → international systems → possible actions.
Question 11: The statement that “climate justice is key to national and human security” suggests that:
A. climate change threatens both governments and individuals
B. climate change affects only political institutions
C. national security is unrelated to environmental issues
D. climate change can only be solved through military action
Question 12: The final paragraph primarily serves to:
A. introduce a new argument about economic development
B. summarize the author’s argument and emphasize the urgency of action
C. criticize Bangladesh and Tuvalu for their adaptation strategies
D. explain technical details about greenhouse gas emissions
Answer: B
Explanation: The conclusion reinforces the themes of responsibility, urgency, and the need for climate justice.
Send a message to learn more
