What is actually happening?
In recent years, specifically in the lead-up to and following the COP28 climate conference in Dubai, discussions surrounding climate negotiations have reached a crescendo. Nonetheless, a closer examination reveals a confusing paradox.
While world leaders sign treaties with ambitious targets for carbon neutrality by 2050, emissions continue to rise. According to the Global Carbon Project’s 2025 report, global CO2 emissions increased by approximately 2.5% in 2024 alone, defying expectations set during prior negotiations.
The reality on the ground indicates that political will often fails when weighed against economic interests. Countries such as India and Brazil, which have committed to aggressive climate action, simultaneously remain heavily dependent on fossil fuel exports. Ironically, their economic growth narratives push established governments to dilute their climate commitments under the auspices of maintaining competitiveness in the global market.
Who benefits? Who loses?
The direct beneficiaries of current climate negotiations appear to be multinational corporations, particularly in the energy sector. Recent reports show that companies like Enel and Shell have redirected significant investments into renewable energy projects, yet they resemble gestures of goodwill more than fundamental shifts in operational paradigms.
According to a 2025 analysis by the Energy Policy Institute, these corporations gained $20 billion in subsidies and tax cuts globally for their renewable endeavors while continuing to profit from gas and oil production, reflecting a deeply embedded institutional hypocrisy.
Conversely, those who pay the price are often low-income communities in developing nations, disproportionately affected by climate change without a voicein global negotiations. Vulnerable regions like Southeast Asia continue to face extreme weather events, primarily due to the negligence of wealthier nations whose emissions are significantly contributing to climate breakdown.
Where does this trend lead in 5-10 years?
Given the current trajectory, projecting the next 5-10 years uncovers a scenario where reliance on fossil fuels remains largely intact, with renewables growing but not sufficient to achieve drastic emission reductions. The current projections by the International Energy Agency forewarn that oil and gas could still create 65% of the world’s energy needs by 2035, contradicting established climate metrics.
As such, high-emission years could become standard rather than transformative, leading to more catastrophic climate events and deepening inequities domestically and globally.
What will governments get wrong?
Governments might miscalculate timing, wholly underestimating the public’s demand for genuine climate action. Public sentiment is trending towards severe climate action as evidenced by the 2025 protests across cities worldwide, organized by groups like Fridays For Future. However, state actors might overemphasize technological solutions, thereby ignoring systemic transformation of existing power structures. They may fail to impose stringent regulations on carbon-intensive industries while leading nations will likely support initiatives that lack enforcement power and accountability.
What will corporations miss?
Corporations are at a risk of missing the pivotal point that future sustainable growth hinges not just on investments in renewables but also on holistic engagement with social justice. Many executives, intriguingly, believe that green technologies alone will mitigate public scrutiny. The 2025 Green Business Index revealed that 45% of corporations prioritize profitability over sustainability in decision-making, which could lead to a backlash from consumers increasingly keen on holding firms accountable for their environmental and social governance.
Where is the hidden leverage?
The hidden leverage lies with grassroots movements and marginalized communities, who now possess greater media platforms and can mobilize public opinion en masse – a pivotal force that governments and corporations often overlook. The rise of local climate action groups empowered by social media has the potential to shift the conversation from political elites to the public domain, enabling a scrutiny of policies that traditional political frameworks have historically evaded.
Conclusion
Despite the premise of constructive dialogue at climate negotiations, the ongoing narratives around them reveal more about the efficacy of profit motives than a genuine path towards sustainable futures. Current strategies risk becoming token gestures rather than sincere commitments, threatening the world’s hope for effective climate action.
This was visible weeks ago due to foresight analysis.
