The Future of Climate Action in a Polarized World

The reality of climate change looms large as an existential threat to global security and our future. Its impact is unraveling sooner than climate scientists predicted. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings show that climate change effects are already occurring with increased intensity. We see more heat waves, torrential rains, and melting glaciers and sea ice in Antarctica.

These effects are likely to accelerate weather-induced disasters, such as flooding, food insecurity, and economic instability. The most recent World Resource Institute report asserts that out of 40 climate action indicators, only 5 are on track, albeit at a slower pace than ideal, to attain a 1.5 degrees Celsius goal by 2030. To reach this goal, the IPCC maintains that global warming must be kept within the range of 1.5–2 degrees Celsius between now and 2025.

Fractured Global Order

This dire outlook comes at a time when the international system is undergoing a watershed moment. Russia’s determination to tip the balance of power from the West by reviving its former Soviet-era influence, coupled with its war on Ukraine, has unleashed a new dynamic of global tensions. Not only has the war on Ukraine exacerbated geopolitical fissures, but it also complicates the already lagging progress on climate action, if not halting the little momentum that has been achieved.

The war is spawning an energy crisis in the region, leaving European Union countries with consumer and industrial energy deficits. This situation forces them to turn away from their zero-carbon policies. The deficit is also hurting economies that have not fully recovered from the Covid-19 shock, compounded by worldwide inflation induced by supply-chain shortages. These recent developments are resulting in a sharp increase in investment in fossil fuels, dimming the hope of achieving the net-zero goal by 2030.

Climate Action Outlook

The fragmentation of the international system and its reverberations on climate change pose serious consequences for developing nations. Under the Paris Agreement, developed nations, largely responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, were obliged to contribute $100 billion to the climate fund by 2020. This fund aims to help developing nations undertake mitigation measures and transition to clean energy as they implement their industrialization policies. The recent pandemic has quelled these efforts, and the war on Ukraine further complicates these countries’ commitments moving forward.

On November 20, 2022, the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP27) concluded in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Among the key issues that reignited climate action were countries’ renewed commitments to the Paris Agreement and a multilateral agreement on a $230 million loss and damage fund. This fund aims to assist nations with the most vulnerable communities affected by climate change. Whether these commitments will materialize remains to be seen due to the lack of accountability mechanisms in the multilateral system. China, one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters, has yet to commit to a multilateral funding agreement, stressing that it is not obliged to help poorer countries mitigate climate change. Instead, it has pledged to commit to its unilateral national strategy.

Limitations

Since global climate action is not legally binding, the implementation of the framework and its effectiveness largely depend on the national political environment. This environment influences climate policies for better or worse. For instance, the right-wing governments of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Donald Trump in the United States were antithetical to global climate policies. They echoed populist extremist views, arguing against a free market and promoting far-fetched conspiracy theories of a “global system that destroys national identity.” The United States rejoined the global climate framework following the emergence of the Joe Biden administration, and so did Brazil after Lula da Silva’s victory over Mr. Bolsonaro. These ebbs and flows of domestic politics create uncertainty around the future of global climate commitments, as they tend to shift with election cycles.

Despite the urgency and imminent threat posed by climate change, the speed of transition from fossil fuels will not match the demands of our present circumstances. Their persistence is driven not by necessity but by economic incentives. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) report shows that the fossil fuel industry received over $5 trillion in subsidies in 2020. These subsidies, particularly in G20 countries, tend to drive domestic energy prices low, consequently increasing fossil fuel consumption for manufacturing and consumer needs. Overall, these policies allow countries to price their exports competitively low. Thus, full commitment to global climate policies often conflicts with national interests for economic competitiveness.

Recommendations

Given the limitations of the traditional state-centric model, a new, more effective approach is emerging. The locus of action is shifting from monolithic international bodies to non-conventional, agile coalitions, including public-private partnerships, city-level alliances, and industry-led initiatives. These groups are succeeding because they bypass geopolitical gridlock and leverage technology to achieve tangible results.

Artificial intelligence and advanced data analytics are the essential instruments for this new model. Where traditional policy fails, technology provides the missing pieces:

1. AI-Powered Policy Simulation: One of the greatest challenges is the conflict between climate goals and economic competitiveness. AI-powered "digital twins" can simulate the complex effects of proposed policies (e.g., a carbon tax vs. a renewable subsidy) before they are implemented. This de-risks the transition and allows policymakers to identify the most economically efficient paths to decarbonization.

2. Hyper-Local Predictive Modeling: AI can analyze vast datasets—from satellite imagery to local sensor data—to predict climate impacts with high-resolution, local-level accuracy. This moves beyond general warnings to pinpointing specific vulnerabilities in food security or infrastructure, enabling precisely targeted mitigation.

3. Enhancing Transparency and Accountability: The "lack of accountability" in the multilateral system can be solved with technology. AI, combined with remote sensing, can automatically and impartially track deforestation, measure real-time emissions, and verify net-zero pledges, holding actors accountable through data, not just promises.

This technological shift also reframes the economic opportunity. As the World Economic Forum (WEF) notes, galvanized climate action could yield $47 trillion in net value by 2070. Africa, with its vast resources, can leverage these AI-driven insights and public-private partnerships to design industrial policies that make it an epicenter for sustainable manufacturing—a 21st-century "black gold."

Finally, sustainable climate action requires embracing this new, tech-enabled model. The current international system, established post-WWII, incentivizes nations to achieve "hegemonic dominance" at the expense of collective ideals.

This system is waning in its effectiveness for 21st-century threats. Our race against climate change demands a more agile, networked, and data-driven approach. While rising geopolitical tensions make top-down reforms unlikely, we can empower these new coalitions to act. In the face of an imminent threat, our hard choices must be to innovate and adapt.

Conclusion

The urgency of climate action cannot be overstated. As we navigate this complex and fractured landscape, it is crucial to recognize that our collective efforts will determine the future of our planet. By embracing innovative strategies—specifically the agile, tech-driven coalitions that are proving more effective than traditional frameworks—and fostering this new form of collaboration, we can pave the way for a sustainable future that benefits all.