ith climate negotiators meeting in Belém for COP30, the fragile geopolitical consensus that has characterized the past three decades appears threatened. Ironically, it was a previous gathering in Brazil—the 1992 Rio Conference—which marked the rise of multilateralism after the Cold War. It represented global recognition that our common future on this vulnerable planet demands collective action.
A decade ago in Paris, that multilateral consensus led to an agreement that the world should try to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above historic baselines. That accord is fragmenting, even as reports suggest that this threshold has already been breached. Governments seem unable to commit to the ambitions necessary to stay within safe boundaries, and we appear to be on a trajectory to a much more unstable climate future.
The geopolitical fault lines are familiar. High–emission nations point to newly industrializing countries' rising emissions trajectories, questioning who should bear responsibility. Those who remain dependent on fossil fuels cite economic concerns and delay transition. Energy–poor countries seek pathways that allow them to meet the needs of their people, and assert their right to develop. Meanwhile, vulnerable communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis have already experienced catastrophic impacts, and seek accountability and compensation.
The reemergence of aggressive national self–interest in geopolitics represents a retreat from the collectivism that shaped environmental multilateralism for a generation.
With current pledges falling far short of Paris targets, attention has turned to adaptation. But framing mitigation and adaptation as alternatives misunderstands the nature of the challenge. Both require urgent action.
Communities have responded to environmental stresses throughout human history. Adaptive capacity is embedded in our evolutionary success. This isn't complacency, but a recognition that humanity has always adjusted to changing conditions. As the crisis intensifies, we must invest more financial, technological, and social resources to cope with what lies ahead.
Yet building resilience and our capacity to cope cannot replace the need to keep reducing emissions. Today, economic incentives are already driving much of the shift away from fossil fuels. Renewable energy is cheaper than alternatives across much of the world, and clean technologies grow more accessible daily.
This energy transition won't be painless. Inevitably, some industries will shed jobs and there will be impacts on livelihoods. Certain communities will struggle, especially those with the least capacity to find work in the new green economy. Without conscious policy attention, we risk repeating past mistakes and leaving behind our most vulnerable populations. A just transition is not inevitable, it requires careful planning.
What then for climate diplomacy? The world is multipolar, and becoming more fragmented—but this does not mean that there is no momentum towards international action. Those who believe in the power of collective action need to build coalitions of the willing—nations, regions, cities, local communities and businesses committed to accelerating change. And, in an age of misinformation, continuing to draw on knowledge and wisdom to drive economic and technological transformation towards a better future.
a global affairs media network
Climate diplomacy must adapt to a multi–polar world
Image courtesy of ISO, via Flickr. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
November 18, 2025
The last climate summit in Brazil marked the start of three decades of consensus on climate action. With negotiators convening in Brazil once again, that consensus appears endangered as climate diplomacy vies to pivot to a multipolar world, writes Cambridge University’s Bhaskar Vira.
W
ith climate negotiators meeting in Belém for COP30, the fragile geopolitical consensus that has characterized the past three decades appears threatened. Ironically, it was a previous gathering in Brazil—the 1992 Rio Conference—which marked the rise of multilateralism after the Cold War. It represented global recognition that our common future on this vulnerable planet demands collective action.
A decade ago in Paris, that multilateral consensus led to an agreement that the world should try to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above historic baselines. That accord is fragmenting, even as reports suggest that this threshold has already been breached. Governments seem unable to commit to the ambitions necessary to stay within safe boundaries, and we appear to be on a trajectory to a much more unstable climate future.
The geopolitical fault lines are familiar. High–emission nations point to newly industrializing countries' rising emissions trajectories, questioning who should bear responsibility. Those who remain dependent on fossil fuels cite economic concerns and delay transition. Energy–poor countries seek pathways that allow them to meet the needs of their people, and assert their right to develop. Meanwhile, vulnerable communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis have already experienced catastrophic impacts, and seek accountability and compensation.
The reemergence of aggressive national self–interest in geopolitics represents a retreat from the collectivism that shaped environmental multilateralism for a generation.
With current pledges falling far short of Paris targets, attention has turned to adaptation. But framing mitigation and adaptation as alternatives misunderstands the nature of the challenge. Both require urgent action.
Communities have responded to environmental stresses throughout human history. Adaptive capacity is embedded in our evolutionary success. This isn't complacency, but a recognition that humanity has always adjusted to changing conditions. As the crisis intensifies, we must invest more financial, technological, and social resources to cope with what lies ahead.
Yet building resilience and our capacity to cope cannot replace the need to keep reducing emissions. Today, economic incentives are already driving much of the shift away from fossil fuels. Renewable energy is cheaper than alternatives across much of the world, and clean technologies grow more accessible daily.
This energy transition won't be painless. Inevitably, some industries will shed jobs and there will be impacts on livelihoods. Certain communities will struggle, especially those with the least capacity to find work in the new green economy. Without conscious policy attention, we risk repeating past mistakes and leaving behind our most vulnerable populations. A just transition is not inevitable, it requires careful planning.
What then for climate diplomacy? The world is multipolar, and becoming more fragmented—but this does not mean that there is no momentum towards international action. Those who believe in the power of collective action need to build coalitions of the willing—nations, regions, cities, local communities and businesses committed to accelerating change. And, in an age of misinformation, continuing to draw on knowledge and wisdom to drive economic and technological transformation towards a better future.
