Dr. Yaser Abdulhussein
“The world is a fine place and worth fighting for,” as the renowned novelist Ernest Hemingway stated. Confronted with the world’s unyielding challenges and the turbulences of hardship and threats, the question remains: Is the world now in its autumn years, particularly considering climate change with rising temperatures, droughts, and water shortages, for which there appears to be no solution or individual, self-serving effort?
Although this century has seen considerable efforts to raise awareness of the threats we face, much of this awareness has become superficial or even used as a political image boost for nations. It has become a key element of posturing in international relations. This is especially clear in the climate crisis, which is not science fiction or a distant threat, but an ongoing real-world battle. It is part of a series of conflicts that, on the surface, seem political, but are fundamentally economic—particularly regarding the future of the fossil fuel industry, clean energy, compensation schemes, and the collective responsibility within multilateral diplomacy. So far, this diplomacy has failed to deliver what is needed. It is as if everyone adopted the banner of green diplomacy, but only for a virtual presence on an issue now at the top of the global agenda. I agree with Albert Einstein's saying: "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything."
“Global Warming” (Angel Poligan)
There is no doubt that liberal ideology is appealing in its content, its underlying principles, and the ideas of its philosophers within the intellectual landscape. However, the transformation of its vast intellectual platforms into mere political fads is a necessary consequence of its intellectual fervor, becoming a rhetorical imperative for its ideological proponents. These platforms, ultimately open to interpretation, encompass topics that have come to occupy prominent areas of interest, such as climate change, feminism, and equality.
Conversely, these intellectual fads are becoming almost ineffective against the three challenges that Noam Chomsky described as the three sides of a triangle: global warming, nuclear war, and the disinformation campaigns that have caused the collapse of any form of rational discourse in the world.
In a world consumed by greed and driven by the pursuit of increased production and bank balances, the significance of the world's green or yellow indicators in its plans is minimal. Even if it secures a small niche, like in the slogans and appeals of some major corporations, it remains part of what might be called "greenwashing." This refers to flashy, appealing, and revolutionary slogans that hide the lack of genuine substance behind the implementation of a green agreement for the planet, such as abandoning fossil fuels—a move that still lacks the political will to end or at least reduce its risks. Although negotiators from nearly 200 countries came together to try and rescue this green diplomacy from collapse, it seems that the pressure from multinational corporations and major industrialised nations has succeeded in turning the issue into little more than a populist spectacle on the international stage. And let us acknowledge that the other side—civil society and climate activists—has been reduced to mere scribbles in the history and artistic memory of the world.
No decision-maker questions the need to control emissions to combat global warming by developing an effective and comprehensive system, as the issue attracts significant attention from both officials and the public. Regarding the latter, as of 2022 and based on a recent estimate by the United Nations Environment Programme, world leaders have signed more than 500 internationally recognised agreements, including 61 atmospheric agreements related to biodiversity, 179 agreements concerning chemicals, hazardous materials, and waste, 46 agreements on land, and 196 agreements generally related to water management. The environment and climate have become among the most prominent topics in international regulations and discussions; yet, humanity's failure to tackle the greatest existential threat remains evident. Climate summits have become a global routine, from Brazil to Kyoto, Paris, Glasgow, Sharm El-Sheikh, and Abu Dhabi; yet, we still need effective solutions, not merely lamentations and pronouncements about the planet's imminent demise.
The question remains: what is the clear outcome after nearly three decades of negotiations, while emissions have hit record levels and continue to rise? Despite all this focus, international diplomacy has failed to devise a plan for substantial emission reductions. It is as if the world's emergency services have yet to arrive on a planet in crisis. Like other global challenges, this issue cannot be separated from the domestic and foreign policies of nations, especially since the main polluters—if we can call them that—show little genuine willingness to reduce their emissions. Consequently, climate justice within the current system needs to be reassessed, despite the recent Sharm El-Sheikh summit in Egypt establishing a climate compensation fund for damages suffered by poorer countries. This contrasts with the ongoing non-compliance of major industrialised nations, requiring a comprehensive review.
“In a world dominated by greedy Hobbesianism, where thinking is confined to increasing production and bank balances, it will not matter whether the world appears green or yellow!”
Everyone agrees on the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit the rise in average temperature, but not everyone is willing to compromise and persist with the same industrial policies. Indeed, achieving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) goal of reducing emissions to stabilise the global average temperature at 1. 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre- industrial levels by 2100 is no easy task. However, the international will to attain this goal remains in its infancy. Meanwhile, the planet' s temperature continues to rise. Mother Earth, of course, does not wait for the political exploitation of crises, as seen with the COVID- 19 pandemic, which targeted humans' respiratory systems individually and exposed the flaws of globalisation and its core standard of political selfishness under the motto "Me first, and to hell with everyone else." While we are currently facing an existential crisis, all sources of human life are at the mercy of the Sino-American rivalry, the Russian-Ukrainian war, and energy crises. Energy disruptions such as those caused by the war in Europe have led many EU members to restart coal- fired power plants or depend on liquefied natural gas, as if the world is now caught in a climate cold war, with the United States, the G 20, and the European Union on one side, and the G 77 countries and China on the other. The issue is that collective diplomacy depends on the foundational structure of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was established in 1994 as a treaty on climate action. It was further developed through the 2015 Paris Agreement and subsequent conferences—which I refer to as "conferences of life"—yet these gatherings now clearly reveal disagreements among participants. It appears that international circumstances have hindered these meetings from fostering a cohesive diplomacy for the global community, which faces the threat of societal extinction in the near future. This danger is compounded by the worsening crisis of international trust and the disruption of the balance of climate justice, especially between the Global South and the Global North. Green initiatives, rhetorical conferences, or Montreal Protocols will be insufficient unless transformed into a "diplomatic pharmacy" capable of delivering immediate and effective solutions. Such solutions cannot come from polluting the skies carelessly and then compensating financially—a superficial equation that seems more suited to Western decision- makers who sleep on feathers, oblivious to those sleeping on the ground.
According to the realist school of thought in international relations, as described by Stephen Walt, each state primarily relies on its own resources for survival. Consequently, trust becomes rare, and international altruism is nearly nonexistent when self-interest surpasses universal values. For this reason, realists are not surprised that major powers do not take the necessary steps to address climate change. For instance, in the area of financing, which depends on trust between wealthy and developing countries and positive responses from industrialised nations, the latter pledged to contribute $100 billion annually by 2020 but failed to meet this commitment. Stephen used Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Stag Hunt” fable of hunters chasing gazelles to illustrate this issue. Two hunters had to decide separately whether to hunt a gazelle or a rabbit. If they cooperated to catch the gazelle, they would both enjoy a venison dinner. But if they secretly aimed for a rabbit, they would lose the venison and quickly become hungry. This reflects the stance of industrialised nations regarding emissions reductions. However, each may be tempted to cheat, especially if they expect others to do the same. This demonstrates the difficulty in convincing countries to sacrifice for the common good. For example, the major economies' reversal on their promises to phase out fossil fuels has raised the bar for developing African countries, who now demand permission to develop their own fossil fuel reserves. Realism suggests that the solution should not rely on idealistic appeals to humanity, but rather on understanding the narrow interests of each nation-state to secure the necessary concessions on this issue.
Although green diplomacy has shifted from being merely an environmental policy to a key element of countries' foreign agendas—and has even become an essential part of national security strategies, leading some nations to appoint specialised climate diplomats—the American stance, for example, remains clearly uncertain. This is evident in Trump's position, who questioned the seriousness of environmental threats and the feasibility of managing them through regulation of major industrialised countries' activities. He once stated he would not abandon oil for what he called "dreams" or "windmills" that, frankly, do not work well—referring to clean energy. This is further demonstrated by Joe Biden's appointment of John Kerry as his special envoy for climate issues.
This is what happens in 2047, according to the imagination of Canadian novelist Omar Akkad in his translated novel "The American War." A bill is passed banning the use of fossil fuels in the United States, leading to secession in some American states. Mexico joins Texas, and others descend into civil war. Under these circumstances, sea levels rise, Florida and the East Coast are submerged, and South Asia experiences severe flooding—the spectre of a harsh climate redraws the world map.
Climate governance also exposes a conflict over identity. While the crisis impacts everyone, the burden will likely fall disproportionately on the industrialised nations of the North, compared to those of the South, which are believed to be the most affected. Given the current geopolitical landscape, climate change may become a secondary issue on the international agenda, or perhaps the most discussed but least acted-upon topic. What if the world, consumed by selfishness, refuses to listen, and the Earth fails to recover its vitality? Then we won't need the prophecies of charlatans, the fortune-telling of soothsayers, or Hollywood horror movie scenarios to know the end of the world. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, "We are on the fast track to climate hell, and our foot is always on the accelerator."
* Iraqi diplomat, researcher in international relations