The Global Fight Against Climate Change Might Be Over. This Isn’t Necessarily a Bad Thing.

A wind energy farm in Haiyan, Jiaxing, China.

As nationalist sentiment and political tensions continue to permeate across the planet, multinational cooperation in the fight against climate change has clearly become less of a priority for most major powers. The 2026 World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Risks Report ranked “geoeconomic confrontation” as the number one short-term threat, trumping “extreme weather events” and “pollution,” which fell from second to fourth and sixth to ninth, respectively, from the previous report. This ranking makes complete sense: in recent months, we’ve seen the US withdraw from the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, China implement harsh controls on rare earth minerals crucial for electric vehicle and wind turbine production, and the European Union mandate that it internally manufactures at least 40% of its clean energy technology, shutting out nations the Union does not consider “trusted partners” from trade. 

At first glance, this development seems alarming. For one, you’d hope major nations were willing to brush aside their differences to combat such a dire issue as climate change. The fate of the planet is at stake, after all. Additionally, the general attitude towards the environment at the moment feels very pessimistic: from 2019 to 2025, the percentage of Americans who thought environmental protection “should be given priority” over economic growth dropped from 65% to 54%. Furthermore, in 2025, the environment ranked only fifth among Americans’ most important policy issues. I’ve noticed that many people around me have opted for the “it isn’t affecting me right now, so why should I care?” approach to the issue. Given our labor market, which continues to stagnate, this attitude, again, makes perfect sense. 

However, what if this global development isn’t necessarily such a bad thing? Undoubtedly, global climate agreements have a rocky history. Take, for example, the Kyoto Protocol, the most notable failure in this department. The treaty primarily focused on meeting emission reduction commitments from industrially developed countries such as the US and Japan. Initially, both experts and politicians considered it a success. Yet, within under a decade, nobody could ignore the Protocol’s shortcomings. It had completely ignored developing countries like China and India—by 2006, China overtook the US as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Illustrating this failure is the fact that global emissions had risen by 44% by 2012, the year after the treaty’s first commitment period. In fact, global agreements in general have a rocky history. The League of Nations, the World Health Organization’s “Health For All” initiative, and UN Peace Operations, to name a few, have all collapsed or been unsuccessful in meeting their targets. Though these might not necessarily be climate-related, they all fit a common theme: nations are typically never truly willing to prioritize a greater, global good over their own personal interests. 

Moreover, I don’t foresee collaboration between major powers becoming more convenient or productive anytime soon. Despite Trump’s remedial efforts, a 2026 ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine remains highly improbable. A possible armed conflict between the US and China appears likely as the People’s Liberation Army continues to prepare to invade Taiwan. Ideological extremists in positions of immense power, especially those bordering on far-right extremism, exist across the globe: if a global geopolitical pendulum swing is possible, there are few signs indicating it will happen any time soon. 

There is some hope, though, even if it doesn’t meet our moral and philosophical standards. The truth is, international agreements don’t produce the most efficient and effective solutions—conflict does. Of course, the most prominent example of this unfortunate reality is World War II. During the war, the US was funding the research of almost 12% of US patents, over five times more than today’s levels. Inventions that consistently benefit humankind and save countless lives—nuclear energy, antibiotics and other medical advancements, radar, and advanced computing technology, to name a few—would likely not have been readily available to those in need for quite some time if not for this conflict. Obviously, one cannot ignore the immeasurable expense at which these advancements came. I’m not advocating for a repeat of this worldwide atrocity. 

The post-universal world we are now witnessing is no accident: major powers are sensing the shift in global tensions and, consequently, are relying less on international cooperation. While it’s disappointing to see the reemergence of violence, nationalism, and protectionism, I don’t think we need to panic or sulk. Time and time again, history has shown that we don’t fix problems as quickly when we’re comfortable, and that, sometimes, collaboration just doesn’t work. As climate disasters become more frequent and green technology more profitable, nations will have no choice but to compete against one another to weaponize energy sovereignty and secure their own borders against a warming world. 

Image Credit

Danie Liu, Unsplash License, via Unsplash