Big picture, the worst case is a retreat from multilateralism and a focus on sovereign security at the expense of climate commitments.
What this looks like is states focusing on strategic advantage for their own nation ignoring the current and future impacts. Examples might include elevating energy generation to “national security” status, along with water, needed in increasing volume to cool computing systems. Or the tech competition could further the exploitation of natural resources, clean water and arable land at the expense of biodiversity, ignoring climate goals.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, again, and promote fossil fuels (“drill, baby, drill”). However, Trump, as always, is a wildcard – not all his rhetoric makes it to policy.
Undoubtedly, the United States is a key player (both as an emitter and fighter of climate change), however hundreds of nations have adopted the legally binding 2015 Paris Agreement. But the US government will probably sit this one out at a crucial inflection point for climate. Global leadership will have to come from somewhere else – others must guide the way.
The best-case scenario is radical change to stop catastrophic climate change, now. We are on the cusp of five catastrophic climate tipping points.
There is global public consensus. The largest ever public opinion survey on climate change, the Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024, shows 80% of people want their governments to take stronger action to tackle the climate crisis. More than 73,000 people, speaking 87 different languages across 77 countries were surveyed.
It has been argued that as Meta allows military agencies to access its AI software, it poses a moral dilemma for everybody who uses it. We may well soon be asking the same question in relation to climate. We need to reimagine our digital future to ensure it aids our climate efforts, rather than hinders them.