From paralysis to action: Together towards a sustainable future

The latest annual conference in Bonn to prepare for the upcoming COP31 in Turkey has once again highlighted the difficulty of reaching agreements on an issue as urgent and, at the same time, as complex as the fight against the climate crisis.

This difficulty is understood within a highly tense global geopolitical context, where differences in economic and political interests are often expressed through discourses that prioritize domestic agendas and evade responsibilities regarding external impacts. Clear examples of this include Saudi Arabia's block on any agreements related to fossil fuels, Russia's stance on gas, or India's insistence on the need to structure a just transition mechanism for decarbonization.

Nevertheless, the underlying reality remains the same one carried over from recent summits: countries in the Global South suffer most intensely and frequently from the consequences of a climate crisis they did not cause, and many of them lack the necessary resources to cope with it.

In parallel, countries in the North—the part clearly responsible for this reality—have the resources to implement various policy packages to address the situation: ranging from emission reduction strategies to infrastructure adaptation projects targeting climate change, aimed primarily at the most vulnerable regions.

This duality of conflicting realities underscores a firm and urgent demand from the Global South: The transfer of financial funds from the North to the South.

Put plainly, the problem is that agreed funds are insufficient and arrive late. Currently, out of the estimated $1.3 trillion annually required for infrastructure adaptation in the most vulnerable countries, only a $300 billion agreement has been signed, which, furthermore, will not take effect until 2035. Concurrently, the political shift in the United States with Donald Trump's return to the presidency in 2025 and his immediate withdrawal of cooperation funds has drastically reduced contributions that were already underway.

Despite the widespread sense of paralysis felt at the COPs, the climate chessboard is not completely locked. Beyond the major headlines of stagnation, glimmerings of optimism are emerging thanks to the determination of countries and stakeholders genuinely committed to a sustainable transition. Three recent examples prove this point:

• New financing avenues through regional leadership: The Brazilian government, as host of the latest climate summit, is actively working and leading the design of new financial architectures to reach the $1.3 trillion target. The strategy consists of opening up financing channels to alternative and private options that had previously been left out of international agreements.
• The myth of economic growth vs. ecological transition, debunked: The United Kingdom has demonstrated that decarbonization is viable in powerful economies. The proof lies in the massive 55% reduction in its emissions over the last 30 years, including emissions associated with its imports, while successfully maintaining positive growth in its GDP per capita.
• The transformation of the global debate: Beyond the slow pace of negotiations and reaching agreements, the mere fact that the entire international community is forced to sit at the same table to achieve global consensus exposes the contradictions and dead ends of the prevailing economic system, which is a positive development in itself. This ongoing debate scenario reveals the intersectional nature of the climate crisis and the consequences of the policies derived from it. Increasingly and decisively, it opens the door to move from theory to action with real, applied implementation proposals.

In this context, it is vital to understand that globalization forces us to work simultaneously on two interconnected scales that make no sense without each other: the global scale and the local scale.

On one hand, the global scale is the arena where countries negotiate and set a collective direction, as no single nation can solve a borderless crisis in isolation. On the other hand, we have the local scale, where climate reality manifests—again, in highly unequal ways. It is precisely at this scale that we, as citizens, have the power and the duty to influence and take a stand on how climate agreements are implemented.

Let us remember that, regardless of what is established at this year's COP, the 2015 Paris Agreement remains in effect and member states are obligated to enforce it.

In this regard, the Iberian Peninsula has specific needs based on its social, environmental, and productive situation—all of which are key to climate action and within everyone's reach.

To mention just a few, every heatwave reminds us that we need livable cities in the summer with climate shelters and adapted housing, a high-quality public transport network that offers genuine alternatives to private vehicle mobility, or a food system aligned with public health standards for people, animals, and the country's agricultural and productive framework.

All these demands are actionable at the local level: through city councils, district boards, or regional governments. What might seem like small actions are actually critical cogs in a larger machine that keeps the wheel turning on a grand scale. We need coherence and consistency to bring a livable future to life—one that already exists in theory but still needs to be brought down to earth.

We have the tools, we have the knowledge, and we have the drive.
Shall we get to work?

Júlia Ferré Aguilar