With the planet facing intensified stress and energy markets tightening in various regions, COP27 appeared unlikely to deliver significant progress. Critics argued that the dynamics of power and oligopolies in major economies could skew forecasts and push climate concerns toward the back burner, especially when recent events shape short-term priorities.
During the Egypt conference period, a prominent economist from India, once a central banker and now a leading finance scholar at a major university, published a thoughtful analysis about deglobalization as a climate risk. He outlined three pillars of climate action: reducing emissions, strengthening adaptation, and supporting migration to climate-stable regions for those whose livelihoods are imperiled by warming. He emphasized that new international agreements would be required to address each pillar, but warned that rising geopolitical competition could hamper mitigation deals. Achieving significant emissions cuts would be difficult if major players doubt their peers will pursue environmental goals over strategic advantage. In short, any meaningful agreements would be easier to reach in a world that avoids fragmentation and economic competition.
From this perspective and other accompanying analyses, a stark conclusion emerges: continuing the retreat from globalization undermines efforts to combat climate change. Globalization, fueled by economies of scale, trade, specialization, and collaborative innovation, has supported broad climate progress. A sustained move toward deglobalization threatens to stall these gains.
Deglobalization is likely to erode trust in mitigation efforts. When trust between actors wanes and trade-offs within the economic system shrink, producers across sectors may resist making their processes more costly at the urging of competitors seeking to gain advantage. That dynamic can stall progress and reduce cross-border cooperation on climate-friendly practices.
The shift away from global integration would also slow growth that supports decarbonization, including the development of renewable energy infrastructure and the advancement of energy storage technologies that depend on scarce materials. Without steady collaboration, the race to scale clean energy could falter, delaying essential breakthroughs in storage solutions and grid modernization.
Deglobalization risks creating a harmful cycle: slower mitigation efforts hit the poorest and most vulnerable regions first, especially those reliant on agriculture. Early climate impacts on farming can often be offset through technological help from wealthier nations, yet the next phase may involve mass migration from warmer regions seeking habitable climates. The resulting demographic pressure could unleash large-scale movements that complicate governance and humanitarian planning, intensifying strain on host regions and resources.
In practical terms, the gravity of this threat should become a central concern for decision-makers. If meteorological patterns compel action and skepticism about climate risk fades, geopolitical frictions that disrupt globalization—such as trade blocks or sanctions—could also impede universal efforts to reduce emissions and advance related mitigation measures. The consequences would be felt directly in the quality of life for future generations, making the pursuit of coordinated climate action more urgent than ever.