Climate Consensus and Global Policy Governance: Important Platforms to Promote Climate Inaction and Doomism

Climate change has resulted in divide between Global North and Global South as mirrored in the World Bank's report where the world's wealthiest individuals in the Global North are worth over three trillion United States of America Dollars (USD), which is double the gross domestic product for the entire African continent or that of India. Due to these inequalities, the Global North government fundamentally prefers a risk-averse approach to conserving the environment. In contrast, the governments in the Global South would prefer a risk-taking economic development model to alleviate the people from chronic and extreme poverty. Global North nations, therefore, are left with a porous setting of global targets, especially when it comes to conferences of the parties to global treaties and United Nations agencies and committees, as witnessed in COP26, where countries like India and China declined the universal treaty of cutting down the use of fossil fuels in 2021. Besides the lack of clear and constraints direction of the Paris Agreement has precipitously allowed nations to control the direction of emissions, with some countries having unsustainable emission visions.

The global policy framework has also increased climate inaction, particularly in the global south. The global policy governance is fragmented since their policy mandates overlap, and multiple players vie for influence. Intergovernmental organisations constitute the core of this system, although they are organised in a variety of ways, have distinct purposes, and vary in their capacity to influence social problems such as the effects of climate change. Intergovernmental organisations with primarily economic purposes, such as the 世界银行 , the International Monetary Fund , and the World Trade Organization , are among those with the biggest influence on social policy and social outcomes, despite conditionality or strict regulation. They regulate the direction of financial flow, which has exacerbated the debt crisis in Africa, where 50% of the continent's gross domestic product is used for loan repayment. In addition to Intergovernmental organisations that are primarily concerned with social policy, such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Conference of Parties COP27 - UN Climate Change Conference frequently rely on the power of norm setting and consensus building to achieve their goals, which is typically in the hands of powerful states who for example the withdrawal of USA from the Paris Agreement under the administration of Donald Trump. At times, the global elites promote policy shopping to implement policies that are advantageous to them through goal setting and or venue shifting, where they move the discussion towards policy that benefit them - Fossil Fuel Dilemma.

Social governance occurs at multiple levels and scales, with global regional organisations playing an increasingly important role. Here, I examine two African examples in detail. First is the agenda 2063 for Africa Transformed economies. I thoroughly look at the region's economic ambitions, although the region has a dichotomy mode of production; few capitalists and a majority in traditional means of production which embraces sedentary farmers and pastoralists the majority located in the rural areas. This parallel form of production is detrimental to economic growth, as the majority of rural residents depend on a struggling capitalist for existence. The second initiative is the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (ACFT), which was launched in 2018. This trade model is economic driven and concerned with trade and capital gain with no social (Climate policy goal), no social value, and no dimensions that seek sustainable development rather than commercial benefits.

Lastly, Egypt recently witnessed the conclusion of a protracted debate between global elites and global poor about who should pay for the harm caused by climate change. The world's climate leaders reached an agreement to pay for their own creations. Climate?loss and damage?emerged more than 30 years ago in small island countries, where lives and livelihoods were most threatened by rising sea levels and fierce storms. In the early 1990s, these countries began to advocate for measures to help cover such losses, such as an international insurance system or a global fund funded by richer countries. However, the?climate talks resulted in two distinct types of funding. Adaptation" funding was intended to assist countries in adapting to the effects of?climate change?by funding projects such as flood barriers and hurricane early warning systems. "Mitigation" funds were intended to assist poorer countries in decarbonizing their economies by constructing, for example, electric bus services or solar farms. The concept of allocating funds to irrecoverable losses and costly damages did not catch on. Instead, it became a flashpoint in talks that have long divided countries: those who grew rich by burning fossil fuels on one side, and poor nations who did almost nothing to warm the planet but are suffering some of the worst effects of?climate?change?on the other. The idea is promising but should be rendered effective when framework to measure accountability, redistribution regulation and rights are put in place.

In conclusion, the Bretton Woods Institute continues to wield immense influence in directing climate inaction through global policies that undermine climate action in social, economic, and political dimensions. Intergovernmental organisations need to have distinct and distinct roles to avoid overlapping and blurring of functions. Besides regional economic model and Transnational organisations need to include social policy in their plan in order to solve the economic turmoil of the region in tandem with other social problems such as climate change and poverty.