As practitioners, key actors, students, or simply as concerned inhabitants of our planet, we are effectively collateral damage to the latest developments on climate change, global warming, and the global health of our ecosystem. Ranging from the cleanliness of our water to the purity of our air, and certainly the quality of our food, our most direct means of sustenance are constantly under threat and at a state of precarity that is predominantly human-induced.
That said, we have gradually developed the consciousness to tangibly and proactively remedy the damages we cause, namely by targeting specific climate change effects such as cool roofs for extreme weather, and legumes as regenerative agriculture to accommodate for food security. In doing so, we are not only asking ourselves the right questions, but we are also investing time, energy, finances, and human capital into potential solutions.

By that same breath, international organizations such as the United Nations (“UN”) have persistently cultivated this idea of cooperation and collective action, and have framed it as the key to achieving global objectives, including the sustainable development goals (“SDGs”). In fact, by visiting the UN’s website on SDGs, readers are informed of how important “mobilization” is to revitalizing “partnerships”; presumably comforted by UN nations’ “shared principles and commitments”; and possibly excited about “the collective journey” whereby “no one will be left behind.” These phrases and expressions not only portray collective action as an imperative to achieving collective goals, but by adopting this unified voice, the UN regroups a number of nations under one voice, and most importantly, under one agenda.
However, the most tenacious obstacles to achieving climate change objectives have been rooted in asymmetrical perspectives on climate change issues from members supposedly committed to the same agenda. A spotlight example of such a dynamic was the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2020, despite continuous years of climate cooperation marked by the successive Montreal Protocol (1987), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992), and the Kyoto Protocol (2005), to name a few. Therefore, in spite of the emphasis we place on collective action and international cooperation, we must acknowledge how the threats to international cooperation within the international system have affected, and continue to affect, prospects of achieving global progress in the Agenda 2030.
As weekly consumers of the Decarb Digest, we know the drill after this many paragraphs. It is time we reflect on the recent origins of international cooperation that root our unwavering optimism. The twentieth century witnessed the emergence of global institutions as a response to worldwide conflict, either of militaristic nature or of ideological character. As the end of World War II saw victorious western countries create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), and the World Trade Organization (WTO), the post-Cold War era followed a similar trajectory, in which an open international economy and trade investment agreements led to movement towards a liberal world order.
However, the contemporary world order as we know it, has been experiencing geopolitical turbulence. Not only are the states shaping the global order more normatively diverse, but this diversity has simultaneously created competition and dismantled preexisting networks of cooperation.
Liberal institutions’ declining credibility and the US-China superpower competition are two of the many episodes that have hinted at this geopolitical shift. Firstly, former President Trump’s comments on the UN and WTO, as well as his opinions on NATO and the G-7 have altered the relationships between these entities and the US. By upending the open international order and by adopting a policy of retrenchment, the Trump administration backpedaled on twelve administrations of international cooperation. Secondly, the US - China superpower competition has exacerbated prospects of economic cooperation; the bilateral trade wars embodied one of many attempts to hamper each other’s sphere’s of economic influence.
When addressing the new dynamics of the international system, it would be reductive to neglect the roles of developing economies and non-state actors, especially with the prevalence of the polylateral model, where non-state actors weigh in on the conduct and direction of international relations. In fact, proponents of polylateralism and its de facto representatives such as Greta Thunberg, have argued that state multilateralism itself inhibits substantial progress on climate change by way of their conflicting interests. Although the most credible international organizations today emanate from diplomatic coalitions, it is the political undertone of these coalitions that has somehow paralyzed their ability and efficiency to address world issues. By virtue of their freedom of sovereignty features, polylateral entities, be they individuals like Greta Thunberg or climate change charities like Climate Emergency Fund, are at the origin of results-oriented coalitions that are guided towards climate objectives.
As practitioners, key actors, students, and concerned inhabitants, it is crucial we revisit the alliances, coalitions, and institutions that yield the most favorable outcomes towards achieving climate objectives.
Comentarios