“Time will reveal the true nature of the COP21 deal.  From epic turning point, to naive expression of hope, it is the real-world actions that follow which will decide. The transformation of the energy system, the economic system and politics that must now follow will be fought by the risk-blind and powerful forces of the status quo. But those of us who wish to build a better world, illuminated by wisdom and evidence, have today delivered a statement of intent that they will need to reflect upon with care. The tide has turned, and they can either swim with it, or against it. But the current has surged.” – Dr Chris Rapley, CBE, writing in 2015, at the time of the adoption of the Paris Agreement

And now in 2025 – the tenth anniversary of the Agreement – it is clear that the powers that be have not delivered. Rather than being led by wisdom and evidence, recent geopolitical developments have drowned public discourse in propaganda and climate denial. 

Over roughly the same period, global military spending rose each year, reaching the highest per person level recorded since 1990. On the matter of climate adaptation, global finance does not come close to bridging enormous gaps between needs and flows. On climate mitigation, the first comprehensive global evaluation of 1500 policies devised between 1998 and 2022 suggests that only 4% of these measures resulted in meaningful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, emissions continue to break records, with  CO₂ accumulating faster than any other time in human history. The richest 1% emit some 16% of the world’s total CO2 emissions, while some 1.2 billion people face “life-changing” risks from  climate-related hazards at the other end.

Year after year the Conference of the Parties of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change fails in producing meaningful solutions. Something is wrong when meetings are hosted and intensely lobbied by oil-rich petrostates, and activists and journalists are arrested at the gates. The US, the largest historical emitter of carbon by a fair margin, has withdrawn from the agreement (again), and global leaders continue to kick the fossil fuel transition can down the road (again). Wisdom and evidence appear to have drowned in this tide.

Demanding change

Despite the relentless propaganda and noise generated by the populist-cum-fossil-fuel lobby, however, people want change. According to the Peoples’ Climate Vote of 2024, 80% of people globally want their countries to do more to tackle climate change. Similarly, 78% want more protection for people at risk, and 79% want richer nations to help those poorer to adapt.

In the light of this, one must simply conclude that the current climate governance mechanisms are unable to drive needed change. This is not surprising. Since the industrial revolution, economic growth has hinged upon the burning of fossil fuels and the consumption of natural resources at an exponentially increasing rate. This applies to technological solutions as well. Electric vehicles, solar panels, and hoped-for technologies for carbon capture do not manifest from thin air. They are borne out of complex supply chains, scarce critical minerals, and often exploitative labour, and unsustainable production practices that can have devastating environmental consequences.

To begin to pursue meaningful change, we should be reimagining the operations of global markets. What would a world look like if it demanded less energy?

Finding trust

What is there to do then? One annual meeting cannot be expected to transform a complex world riven by competing interests and confronted by set pathways. In fact, one could even argue that the Paris Agreement has served its purpose, simply by enabling these conversations and platforms between nations that would otherwise have been unlikely to occur.

Yet, I believe the past 10 years indicate that it is our responsibility to abandon illusions. As recent democratic backsliding and greenlash demonstrate, malicious parties are investing increasing amount of money to manipulate voters toward climate denialism. Populism is on the rise, providing distractions that take away from urgent problems. To change, we cannot afford to fully trust in institutions that, on the one hand, claim to advance climate action, while on the other take actions that fuel climate breakdown, including issuing new permits for oil exploration or hitching national pension funds to the fossil fuel industry.

We can, however, trust each other. Climate action continues to take place in neighbourhoods, through voting, and engagement with civil society organizations. We can find faith in the ability of peoples to act together, in communities and across nations, toward common goals. Rather than suspending our lives on manipulated algorithms and language learning models, or our hopes on ineffective governance mechanisms and technologies that are yet to exist, change is to be found in the everyday. For that, we must know each other, what we want, and negotiate how to get there through global unity of peoples.

When our leaders fail, we cannot. Our future depends on it.