The Fallacy of Political Competition: A Path to Extinction and the Urgent Need for Collaborative Global Sustainability

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion are existential threats that humanity has had to confront in the twenty-first century. Political systems, however, continue to stall in spite of the huge body of scientific evidence and the public's call for action. The fundamental reason is the fallacy of political competition, which is a system that puts immediate benefits ahead of long-term viability. This essay examines how this misconception jeopardises sustainability on a global scale, why it continues, and what may be done to prevent disaster.

?

The Psychology of Political Competition

?

Political rivalry is sustained in large part by human psychology. According to evolutionary psychology, people are predisposed to tribal behaviour, promoting out-group rivalry and in-group devotion. Partisan divisions, where the "other side" is viewed as an adversary to be vanquished rather than a collaborator in problem-solving, are one way that this shows up in contemporary politics.

?

For instance, climate change has become a divisive topic in the US. Compared to just 22% of Republicans, 72% of Democrats believe that climate change is a serious concern, according to a 2023 Pew Research’s study. This division stems from identity politics and tribalism rather than disagreements in science. Bipartisan cooperation is stifled by such polarisation, which delays international accords or important climate legislation like the Green New Deal.

The Economics of Short-Termism

?

Short-term gain-oriented economic systems are intrinsically linked to political competitiveness. Politicians prioritise short-term gains over long-term advantages because they are motivated by election cycles. Continued fossil fuel subsidies are a clear indication of this short-termism. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that total fossil fuel subsidies in 2022 amounted to $7 trillion, or 7.1% of the world's gross domestic product. These subsidies, in spite of their disastrous effects on the environment, are frequently kept in place to win votes or please influential industries.

?

Furthermore, the economic theory known as the tragedy of the commons explains why countries put their own interests ahead of the welfare of the world. China and India, for example, contend that developed countries should be the ones to take the brunt of climate action because they have traditionally contributed the most to emissions. The minimal progress at COP27 in 2022 is evidence that this "blame game" leads to a deadlock.

?

Power Dynamics and the Status Quo

?

Power struggles, both within and between countries, are another aspect of political competitiveness. In order to preserve the status quo, influential businesses and lobbyists frequently sway political agendas. For instance, according to OpenSecrets, the fossil fuel sector spent more than $200 million on lobbying in the United States in 2022 alone. This financial power guarantees strong opposition to programs that support carbon taxes or renewable energy. Global climate inaction is made worse by geopolitical competition. Global climate cooperation has been hampered, for example, by the rivalry between the United States and China. Despite being the biggest emitters in the world, both countries' rivalry for military and economic supremacy frequently trumps cooperative climate initiatives. This was demonstrated by the Paris Agreement's delayed ratification, which needed the collaboration of both countries in order to be implemented.

?

The Consequences of Inaction

?

Persistent political rivalry has grave consequences. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if present trends continue, global temperatures could increase by 2.7°C by the year 2100. There would be disastrous repercussions from this, including:

?

• A 1-meter rise in sea levels, displacing 250 million people by 2050.
• A 20-30% decline in global crop yields, exacerbating food insecurity.
• The extinction of up to 1 million species, according to the UN's 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

?

These outcomes are immediate risks rather than far-off possibilities. By 2030, an additional 100 million people may fall into poverty as a result of climate change, according to World Bank estimates. Political rivalry still obstructs progress even if the cost of mitigation is substantially lower than the cost of inaction.

A Better Way: Collaborative Governance

?

The solution lies in shifting from competitive to collaborative governance models. This requires:

?

1. Long-Term Policy Frameworks:?going beyond election cycles to put policies into place that benefit future generations. The Wellbeing Budget of New Zealand, for instance, places a higher priority on long-term environmental and societal health than on immediate financial gains.

?

1. Global Cooperation:?bolstering global organisations such as the United Nations to uphold climate accords. The potential of international cooperation is demonstrated by the success of the Montreal Protocol, which phased out ozone-depleting compounds.

?

1. Corporate Accountability:?strengthening laws governing corporate lobbying and providing incentives for environmentally friendly company operations. One move in this direction is the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) of the European Union.

?

1. Public Engagement:?utilising grassroots initiatives to demand accountability from politicians. Greta Thunberg and other activists spearheaded the global Climate Strikes, which demonstrated the effectiveness of public pressure in igniting political action.

?

Why This Shift is Critical

?

The global sustainability pivot is not just an environmental imperative but a survival strategy. The World Economic Forum's 2023 Global Risks Report identifies climate action failure as the top long-term risk to humanity. Addressing this requires dismantling the fallacy of political competition and embracing a collective approach.

?

The cost of delay is astronomical. The IPCC estimates that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require annual investments of 2.4 trillion by 2035. While this seems daunting, it pales in comparison to the 54 trillion in damages projected under a 2°C scenario. The choice is clear: invest now or pay exponentially more later.

?

The Perceived Competition on LLM and the Artificial Sun

?

The alleged rivalry between superpowers has recently permeated scientific and technological developments, especially in the areas of nuclear fusion, also known as the "artificial sun," and Large Language Models (LLMs). Even if these developments have enormous potential to solve global issues, the current course is moving more and more in the direction of superpower supremacy than scientific brilliance.

?

?

Large Language Models (LLMs):

?

In the U.S.-China tech competition, the creation of LLMs—like OpenAI's GPT series and China's Ernie Bot—has emerged as a new frontier. The battle is frequently portrayed in terms of economic domination and national security, despite the fact that these models have the capacity to transform sectors, enhance education, and address difficult global issues. Because each country aims to outdo the others rather than combining resources for mutual gain, this zero-sum mentality discourages cooperation and results in pointless efforts.

?

For example, China has expedited its own AI development to lessen reliance on foreign technology, while the United States has placed export restrictions on advanced AI technologies, citing national security concerns. In addition to impeding scientific advancement, this tit-for-tat strategy runs the risk of dividing AI ecosystems, making them less capable of tackling global issues like poverty, healthcare, and climate change.

?

?

Nuclear Fusion (Artificial Sun):

?

Often referred to as the "artificial sun," nuclear fusion holds great promise for revolutionising the search for clean, endless energy. However, geopolitical competition has also tainted the effort to establish fusion domination. Political conflicts among member governments have contributed to delays and funding problems for the 35-nation International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project.

?

In the meantime, China and the United States are both making significant investments in their own national fusion initiatives, frequently with a focus on gaining a "first-mover advantage" as opposed to adding to a common global knowledge base. In addition to duplicating work, this competitive strategy runs the risk of producing private technology that could be monopolised or used as weapons rather than being made available to all people.

?

?

Why This is Not Helpful:

?

1. Resource Duplication:?Research and development activities that are redundant as a result of competition for supremacy waste money that could be used for cooperative projects.
2. Fragmentation of Knowledge:?The free exchange of scientific knowledge is impeded and overall progress is slowed down when countries put their own interests ahead of international cooperation.
3. Missed Opportunities:?The potential of these technologies to address urgent global concerns like healthcare inequities, energy poverty, and climate change is diminished by the emphasis on competitiveness.
4. Increased Risk:?Instead of promoting peace and collaboration, the weaponization or monopolisation of cutting-edge technology like artificial intelligence and fusion energy could worsen geopolitical tensions and global inequality.

?

What Needs to Change:

?

1. Global Frameworks for Collaboration:?putting in place international institutions and agreements that place a higher priority on scientific excellence than on national domination. Although it requires more financing and political support, the ITER project is a positive step.
2. Open Science Initiatives:?promoting data sharing and open-source models in AI and fusion research to guarantee fair access and hasten advancement.
3. Public-Private Partnerships:?utilising the advantages of both public and commercial organisations to promote innovation and guarantee that the rewards are distributed internationally.
4. Ethical Guidelines:?establishing and upholding moral standards that put the interests of the general public ahead of those of the country or business.

?

The Delicate Matter of the Global South and Their Right to Develop and Self-Govern

?

The sensitive issue of the Global South's right to self-govern and development must be included in the conversation on global sustainability. Historically, impoverished countries are disproportionately affected by climate change, whereas wealthier countries have been the main source of greenhouse gas emissions. This disparity calls into doubt the right to growth, justice, and fairness.

?

?

Historical Context:

?

The 18th century saw the start of the Industrial Revolution, which set the stage for the modern developed countries' economic success. However, there was a substantial environmental cost associated with this advancement. Despite making up only around 10% of the world's population, the United States and Europe are accountable for around 50% of the total CO2 emissions since 1751, according to the World Resources Institute. Many countries in the Global South, on the other hand, are still in the early phases of industrialisation. Countries like Bangladesh, Nigeria, and India must simultaneously reduce the effects of climate change and help millions of people escape poverty. For example, India, which has a population of over 1.3 billion, contributes only 7% of world emissions overall, despite being one of the nations most at risk from climate change.

?

?

The Right to Develop:

?

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises that developed and developing countries have different capacities and duties when it comes to addressing climate change. This is known as the "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR) principle. This idea emphasises that even as the world moves towards a low-carbon future, the Global South has the right to pursue economic growth and raise living standards. However, the laws and customs of affluent countries frequently violate this principle. For instance, developing countries may be disproportionately impacted by the implementation of carbon tariffs or the termination of climate finance, which would restrict their capacity to make investments in sustainable development. In 2020, affluent countries failed to meet their yearly climate financing obligation to developing countries of $100 billion, according to the OECD.

?

?

Self-Governance and Sovereignty:

?

Another crucial problem is the right of the Global South to self-governance. Many developing countries are under external pressure to implement particular climate policies, which are frequently imposed by powerful states or international organisations. International collaboration is crucial, but it must respect each country's sovereignty and particular situation. The Green Climate Fund (GCF), for example, which was created to aid developing countries in their climate efforts, has come under fire for having complicated approval procedures and conditionalities that may conflict with local goals. A report released in 2021 by the International Only 20% of GCF money reached the most vulnerable areas, according to research by the Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), underscoring the need for more inclusive and participatory governance.

?

?

A Path Forward:

?

1. Equitable Climate Finance:?Developed countries have an obligation to fulfil their climate finance pledges and guarantee that funds are available, transparent, and in line with recipient countries' interests.
2. Technology Transfer:?Bridging the gap between sustainability and development can be achieved by facilitating the transfer of clean technologies to underdeveloped countries. To do this, obstacles like expensive licensing costs and intellectual property rights must be removed.
3. Capacity Building:?Countries in the Global South can be empowered to create and carry out their own climate policies by investing in infrastructure, education, and institutional capacity.
4. Inclusive Governance:?Designing international climate agreements requires inclusive procedures that honour the sovereignty and opinions of poor countries. This entails resolving power disparities and guaranteeing representation in decision-making bodies.

?

Conclusion

?

Humanity can no longer afford the luxury of political competitiveness. The opportunity for taking action is getting smaller as climate change picks up speed. Systemic change is required to address the psychological, economic, and power factors that support this misconception. The future is more equal, sustainable, and efficient with collaborative governance.

?

Nothing less than the planet's and humanity's survival is at risk. "We are at the most dangerous moment in the development of humanity," the late Stephen Hawking reportedly said. We still don't have the means to leave the world we live on, but we do have the technology to destroy it." Now is the moment to take action.