The Climate Crisis as a Diplomatic Battlefield

Harmful gasses continue to be released into the atmosphere across the world. Credit: Unsplash/Ehud Neuhaus

By Richmond Acheampong
ACCRA, Ghana , Dec 18 2024 (IPS)

The climate crisis, a defining challenge of the 21st century, is not just an environmental issue; it is increasingly a critical arena for international diplomacy. From intense negotiations at COP summits to the politics of energy transitions and resource control, climate change is shaping the geopolitical landscape.

This dynamic reflects deep divides between developed and developing nations on climate justice and raises critical questions about whether global diplomacy can bridge these tensions to achieve meaningful change.

Climate Change

Climate change is a global problem requiring collective action, but the geopolitical nature of climate negotiations often complicates this goal. At international forums such as the Conference of the Parties (COP), countries are expected to come together to craft solutions to limit global temperature rises. However, these forums frequently highlight stark disparities in perspectives, priorities and responsibilities.

Developed nations, historically responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions, often push for ambitious global targets. Yet, they are also accused of failing to deliver on their promises of financial and technological support for developing nations.

Developing countries, on the other hand, prioritize adaptation and financial aid, arguing that their limited historical contributions to emissions and ongoing developmental needs make equity and fairness non-negotiable.

This tension has been a recurring theme, exemplified by the debates around loss and damage funding, the establishment of which marked a significant step at COP27 in Egypt. While the agreement was a victory for climate justice advocates, questions remain over its operationalization and whether it can meaningfully address the complex needs of vulnerable countries.

The Politics of Energy Transitions

The transition to renewable energy lies at the heart of climate action, but it also underpins new forms of geopolitical rivalry. The shift from fossil fuels to renewables disrupts existing power dynamics in the global energy market, creating opportunities and challenges.

Developed nations, equipped with technological advancements and financial resources, are positioning themselves as leaders in renewable energy. The European Union, for instance, has spearheaded green initiatives such as the European Green Deal, while the United States has invested heavily in clean energy infrastructure through the Inflation Reduction Act.

These countries frame their actions as models for others to follow, yet their own energy security priorities sometimes overshadow global equity concerns.

For resource-rich developing nations, the politics of energy transitions are more nuanced. Countries like Nigeria and Angola, whose economies rely heavily on fossil fuel exports, face the dual challenge of transitioning to renewables while maintaining economic stability.

Moreover, resource control over critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements, essential for renewable energy technologies, has turned countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo into focal points of international competition.

The scramble for these resources raises concerns over whether the renewable energy revolution will perpetuate the same extractive patterns that have historically marginalized the Global South.

Climate Justice

The concept of climate justice underscores the inequities between developed and developing nations in their capacity to combat and adapt to climate change. Developed nations, having industrialized on the back of carbon-intensive activities, are now urging the Global South to follow a low-carbon development path. However, this demand often neglects the realities faced by many developing nations.

Countries in the Global South are disproportionately affected by climate impacts despite contributing the least to global emissions. From rising sea levels in the Pacific Islands to desertification in the Sahel, vulnerable nations bear the brunt of a crisis they did not create. Calls for climate finance, particularly grants rather than loans, have been central to their demands, as they seek support for adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage recovery.

Yet, the failure of developed nations to fulfill their long-standing pledge of $100 billion annually in climate finance exacerbates mistrust. At COP28 and beyond, developing nations are likely to continue pressing for stronger commitments and mechanisms to ensure accountability. The tension lies not just in the amount of financing but also in its accessibility, with many vulnerable nations criticizing complex processes that delay much-needed support.

Diplomacy at COP

The annual COP summits are microcosms of the broader diplomatic battle over climate change. Since the landmark Paris Agreement in 2015, these summits have sought to galvanize global action to limit temperature increases to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. However, the implementation of these commitments remains uneven and the ambition gap persists.

The Paris Agreement’s hallmark principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR-RC) captures the equity challenge at the heart of climate diplomacy. It acknowledges that while all nations must act on climate change, their responsibilities differ based on historical emissions and capacities.

Yet, operationalizing this principle often leads to disagreements. Developed nations emphasize collective action and insist that emerging economies like China and India ramp up their mitigation efforts. Conversely, developing nations argue that they should not bear the same burden as historically high emitters.

The incremental nature of COP negotiations also invites criticism. Critics argue that the focus on long-term goals often overshadows the urgency of immediate action, and the influence of powerful fossil fuel lobbyists at these summits further complicates progress. Despite these challenges, COP summits remain a vital platform for fostering dialogue, building coalitions, and driving incremental but meaningful change.

Beyond COP

The geopolitics of climate change extend far beyond COP negotiations. Climate action has become a strategic lever in foreign policy, with countries using it to forge alliances, exert influence and secure economic advantages.

For instance, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has incorporated green development as a key pillar, with Beijing promoting renewable energy projects across the Global South. However, critics question whether these projects align with sustainability goals or primarily serve China’s geopolitical interests.

Similarly, the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes tariffs on carbon-intensive imports, is seen by some as a protectionist measure that could disadvantage developing countries.

The United States has also positioned itself as a climate leader under the Biden administration, rejoining the Paris Agreement and committing to ambitious domestic targets. However, its international credibility on climate action remains fragile, given its historical withdrawal from agreements and ongoing domestic political divisions.

Can Global Diplomacy Bridge the Divide?

The ability of global diplomacy to overcome tensions and achieve meaningful change hinges on several factors. First, trust-building measures, such as fulfilling climate finance commitments and establishing transparent mechanisms for loss and damage funding, are essential. Second, fostering inclusive decision-making that amplifies the voices of vulnerable nations can help bridge the North-South divide.

Innovative approaches, such as the Bridgetown Initiative proposed by Barbados, offer a potential roadmap. This initiative advocates for reforming the global financial system to better address climate vulnerabilities, emphasizing grants, concessional financing and debt relief for climate-affected countries. Such proposals highlight the need for structural changes that go beyond the traditional frameworks of climate diplomacy.

Finally, the rise of climate activism and youth movements worldwide has injected new urgency and accountability into the process. From Greta Thunberg’s Fridays for Future to indigenous movements defending natural resources, these voices challenge governments to act with greater ambition and equity.

Conclusion

The climate crisis is undeniably a diplomatic battlefield, reflecting deep-seated inequities and competing priorities. While international forums like COP provide a platform for negotiation, the path to meaningful change requires addressing the underlying tensions between developed and developing nations. Climate justice, equitable energy transitions, and innovative financial mechanisms must take center stage if global diplomacy is to succeed.

The stakes could not be higher. As the impacts of climate change accelerate, the world faces a narrowing window of opportunity to act decisively. Only through genuine collaboration, rooted in fairness and shared responsibility, can humanity rise to the challenge and transform the climate crisis from a battlefield into a catalyst for global solidarity.

Richmond Acheampong is a journalist and columnist specializing in international affairs, a PR expert, and a journalism lecturer with a PhD in Journalism and expertise in global diplomacy and foreign policy. Contact: achmondsky@gmail.com

IPS UN Bureau