Politics may be hampering efforts to adequately address climate change
The United Nations (UN) and others, have been proclaiming loudly for many years, that carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, generated by human activity, have been contributing to the rapid changing of the climate in ways that, if persist, will eventually render the planet uninhabitable. Yet, despite this frightening and alarming proposition, many countries of the world, including some that emit the majority of the carbon dioxide, seem to be in no hurry to do what is considered urgent and necessary to mitigate or curtail carbon dioxide emissions. The big carbon-emitting nations, the US, China, India, the European Union and others, signed the Paris Agreement, indeed, all member countries of the UN signed the Paris Agreement except Libya, Yemen and Iran. By signing the agreement the countries gave their full acceptance of the reality of a changing climate and their commitment to act to counter its ramifications. So far, success in the global fight against climate change is marginal, at best, and the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu, believes that geopolitics bears a major responsibility.
To the Kleinman Center, the notion of climate change solution rests on the premise of global cooperation but current global affairs is not devoid of tensions and conflicts. It states “the world’s two largest national emitters, the United States and China, are also its two largest economies and fields its two largest and most capable military forces, making climate cooperation between them a matter of geopolitics.” Also, it goes on to argue that the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the tensions this brought to Europe will not foster cooperation on climate issues, “these developments underscore the extent to which geopolitics has become a critical influence on international climate policy and climate action at national, regional and multilateral levels.”
Another practical example of geopolitics affecting climate cooperation, according to the Kleinman center, was when “Beijing unilaterally suspended formal dialogue with the U.S. on climate change for more than a year in response to a visit to Taiwan by a prominent American politician.” It also argues that thought nations are encouraged to produce and use renewable energy by the Paris Agreement, some countries could see this not in the context of benefits for the planet’s climate, but in the context of market share and competition. An example given, is the US Inflation Reduction Act of 2024, that increased tariffs on Chinese renewable energy products, on the one hand, and gave subsidies to local renewable energy companies on the other, on the allegation that “Chinese firms had gained market share thanks to unfair trade practices.”
The Kleinman center is concerned that protectionism and tariffs may hinder the flow and increase the cost of renewable technology, thus hampering global climate mitigation efforts. It is also concerned that continued geopolitical conflicts could cause “autocratic petrostates” to create a “pro-carbon coalition,” at odds and in competition with the recommendations and philosophy of the Paris Agreement.
Though climate change may be existential in its proposed effects, its being given no preferential attention by nation states, Kleinman center suggests that like other issues in society it’s totally enmeshed in the regular process of geopolitics.