Pakistan is among seven countries set to receive “Global Shield” funds from the UN, a climate-disaster aid scheme coordinated by the G7 following the COP27 summit on Sunday to compensate climate- countries for the damages they have suffered at the hands of climate change. Backed by funding from Germany and smaller donations from Denmark and Ireland, the Global Shield aims to help vulnerable countries by “bridging the resourcing gaps facing climate action” by providing insurance and disaster protection. Many have warned that the plan could reverse the G77’s efforts to secure financial help for “loss and damage”, which was recently debated at the UN. The COP summit was instrumental in many ways-for the first time in the summit’s history, “loss and damage” was added to the agenda, enabling the G77 to negotiate for increased financial assistance from wealthier countries who have resisted this on several occasions in the past. The scheme’s focus on insurance has attracted criticism from concerned countries, who argue that any financial assistance to disaster-prone countries should be grant-based. Indeed, is unreasonable to ask cash-strapped countries to loan the money considering they are already bearing the cost of a monstrous climate change problem, to which they have done very little to contribute. It is unclear how much of the Global Shield funding is grant-based. What we do know with certainty is that it barely scratches the surface of what is necessary to compensate the developing world for its disaster-related damages. In fact, it will likely put even more pressure on vulnerable countries that are already struggling to pay off their debts. According to the V20, its members have suffered climate-related damages estimated at a staggering $525bn. “Loss and damage” is significant because it acknowledges that the damage is simply far too great, irreparable even; for people living in these conditions, buying insurance simply isn’t the answer. It is a matter of life and death that demands unconditional assistance, and aid without any strings. A dedicated funding body is much more appropriate as it covers the cost of longer-onset climate impacts and will be more effective at mitigating climate-related strategies in the future. The Global Shield Funds might be a step in the right direction but they fall terribly short of what is needed before the developed world can stand on its feet again. *