Climate politics in global Hobbesian Jungle

Climate change, largely triggered by human-induced greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions, seems unstoppable. There was a strong rebound of anthropogenic emissions of CO ₂, the preponderant GHG in terms of contribution to global warming, around the world after the COVID-19 lockdown. Also, there is still no widely accepted international treaty on curbing the anthropogenic emissions of CH ₄ and N ₂O, the second and third predominant GHG, respectively, so far. Thereby, prima facie, in respect to mitigating climate change, currently, humans have no aces up their sleeves. It seems that current temperature rise is not high enough to take alarm until the occurrence of tipping point.

Climate-related international treaties, such as 2016 Paris agreement, are compromises among conflicting geopolitical pressures. However, currently, the climate treaties show little mandatory binding force on the signatories who are able to violate and then get off scot-free, thus may end up like a nostrum. Throughout the European history, I find that the only way, if at all, to achieve the peace or obedience of a treaty is via balancing powers, embodied in Bismarck's Realpolitik of Germany and Richelieu's Raison d'état of France. Similarly, the Chinese history in East Asia proved the significance of unadulterated ideological neutrality and Darwinian adaptability in the kaleidoscope of evolving circumstances in maintaining order and enforcement of international treaties through balancing the power of rivalries to constrain ever-recurring challengers for equilibrium.

A successful policy needs to make a thorough analysis of all relevant factors to form a long-term strategic notion. Then, statesmen need to distill an array of nebulous, always contradictory options into a tenacious, controllable direction. Thereby, I suggest that, for better curbing global warming, climate agreements or climate club be incorporated into an overall geopolitical framework among the international communities.