Good question. Short answer: yes — but not exactly a classical UBI tied to climate disasters. What is more prominent is social protection (safety nets) that are “shock-responsive” (i.e. triggered by climate-related shocks), rather than an unconditional universal basic income.

Here’s a breakdown based on G20 and COP 30:

What the G20 Has Said on Social Protection + Climate Risk

Adaptive / Shock-Responsive Social Protection In its recent “Call to Action” (2025), the G20 explicitly commits to “adaptive social protection” systems that respond to crises and shocks, including those driven by climate change.  According to the G20’s social protection systems & floors document, they endorse “shock responsive social protection systems” that can provide resilience for vulnerable people.  These systems are not exactly UBI, but a mechanism to give people cash or support when disasters hit (rather than a flat, universal payment always). Link to Climate Strategy The G20 development declaration (Skukuza, 2025) links social protection explicitly to climate: “social protection systems … should be adaptable … taking into account climate strategies … supporting just transitions … ensuring that no one is left behind … especially … in developing countries.”  So, the G20 is thinking in terms of resilience + adaptation, not UBI for its own sake. Disaster Risk Reduction In the G20 Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Ministerial Declaration (2025), they highlight how increasing disasters (driven by climate) are making vulnerability more acute and stress the need to address inequalities in disaster risk reduction.  Vulnerable communities are especially in focus: “those already disproportionately impacted by disasters … including those in vulnerable situations …” 

What’s Happening at COP 30 (or Related to It)

Social Protection & Climate at COP30

At COP30 in Belém (2025), there’s a side‐event by FAO, ILO, UNICEF, UNRISD titled: “Fostering human and social development amid climate change: The power of social protection for all”.  That event explicitly links social protection to “climate mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage … structural inequalities … just transition.”  The discussions there seem to support the idea that social protection (cash transfers, social benefits) can be a key tool to help climate-vulnerable populations. COP30 Loss & Damage Fund One of the big debates at COP30 is about the Loss and Damage Fund.

Civil society groups (e.g. GNDR) are calling for the fund to be “accessible to those at the local level” and to frontline, marginalized communities.  Oxfam has criticised the COP30 text for not doing enough on loss and damage: “adaptation finance is a lifeline … yet the text does not include a roadmap … to respond sufficiently to climate disasters.”  There’s also a push (from other actors) to fund the Loss & Damage mechanism using solidarity levies (i.e. “polluter pays”), such that revenue could go toward helping affected communities. 

Interpretation & Caveats

It’s not “UBI = climate tax payout”: What both G20 and COP30 are more clearly pushing is social protection that is responsive to shocks, rather than unconditional cash to everyone (which is what many people think of as UBI). Focus on vulnerability: The target isn’t universal, but vulnerable populations. The language is about “social protection floors” and helping those more at risk, especially in developing countries. Financing challenge: While there is talk of new funds (e.g. via the Loss & Damage Fund), capacity, access, and scale remain big questions. Some civil society groups are critical of COP30’s finance commitments.  Long way to go: Even though these commitments exist on paper, translating them into operational, reliable programs that function like a “basic income when disaster strikes” is complex.

Bottom Line

Yes, G20 is explicitly endorsing adaptive, shock-responsive social protection linked to climate risk, which is the closest thing they have to a “UBI for climate shocks.” At COP30, the conversation is also very much about social protection as a tool for climate justice — especially in relation to loss & damage — but nothing so far is framed as a universal basic income for all in response to climate change.

——