How to govern climate policy in a divided world

That disagreement defines the politics of climate change today. It divides the present from the future, rich countries from poor ones, powerful states from vulnerable ones, and citizens who value the long term from those focused on immediate needs. Finding ways to govern amid these divisions is the defining test for 21st-century policy design.

Ministers attending COP30 must therefore deploy instruments that map to political constituencies, not just ideal economic models.

1. Bridging the generation gap

At COP30—10 years on from the Paris Agreement—the difference in perspective between present and future generations is acute. The host city of Belém, in the Amazon, symbolizes this global legacy.

Economic models differ on how heavily to “discount” the well-being of future people. The Stern Review adopted a low discount rate, arguing for strong, early action; William Nordhaus and others preferred higher rates reflecting private investment returns.

Instead of seeking a single correct number, governments can adopt precautionary and institutional responses. Precautionary principles—like “safe minimum standards” for ecosystems or biodiversity—protect against irreversible losses without assigning them a price tag. Institutional innovations, such as citizens’ assemblies or “offices for future generations,” give voice to those who cannot yet vote.

These mechanisms turn ethical disagreement into democratic deliberation, helping societies act responsibly toward the future without pretending consensus on its exact worth.

2. Sharing responsibilities across borders

The divide between rich and poor countries is equally deep. Wealthy nations industrialized first and emitted most of the accumulated carbon now driving global warming. Poorer nations face the dual task of developing economically while avoiding the same path.

The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” embedded in the Paris Agreement, remains the cornerstone of a fair climate regime. The task now is to operationalize it—through predictable climate finance, debt swaps for nature, and technology-sharing arrangements.

Carbon clubs—coalitions of countries linking market access to climate performance—offer a complementary path. Properly designed, such clubs can reward ambition while dedicating a share of revenues to support low-income participants. This combination of incentives and equity is critical to maintaining legitimacy in a multipolar world.

3. Balancing power among nations

Climate diplomacy also reflects global power imbalances. Small island states and least-developed countries bear the brunt of climate impacts but wield little geopolitical leverage.

Rules and institutions can help level the field. International law is beginning to treat climate inaction as a human rights issue, giving vulnerable nations new avenues to hold major emitters accountable.Transparency and standardized reporting under frameworks such as the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) also generate reputational and financial pressure on laggards.

In parallel, “minilateral” initiatives—small groups of willing countries advancing faster—can create competitive pressure for others to follow, provided that such clubs include fair access and technical assistance for weaker states.

4. Reconciling different time preferences

Within and between countries, there is a divide between those who prioritize near-term gains (jobs, energy costs, growth) and those willing to invest for long-term planetary resilience. COP30 must manage both.

Policy design can bridge this divide. Gradually rising carbon prices, coupled with visible rebates or tax swaps, deliver immediate benefits while maintaining the long-term signal for emissions reduction. “No-regret” measures—like improving energy efficiency or restoring degraded ecosystems—benefit both present and future generations.

Scholars such as Martin Weitzman and Robert Pindyck emphasize that climate change involves “fat-tailed” risks—low-probability, high-impact catastrophes. In such cases, mitigation functions as insurance. Societies with high discount rates still have reason to pay premiums against existential threats.

5. From consensus to robustness

In many policy domains, disagreement leads to paralysis. But climate policy can move forward by focusing not on perfect consensus, but on robustness.

“Decision making under deep uncertainty” (DMDU), a framework developed by RAND researchers like Robert Lempert, offers a pragmatic approach. Instead of optimizing for one forecast of the future, DMDU stress-tests policies across many plausible scenarios. The goal is to find strategies that perform reasonably well under all of them.

This approach reframes climate governance as adaptive learning, which allows policy design to evolve as information, technologies, and social values change. It is an institutional response to political and ethical pluralism.

6. Policy architecture for a divided world

A realistic climate policy architecture should combine three elements:

1. Procedural legitimacy – through deliberative processes, representation of future interests, and transparent trade-offs
2. Precaution and safety standards – to manage irreversible risks where valuation fails
3. Redistribution and incentive compatibility – to ensure that poorer and weaker actors are compensated for their participation

Such a system doesn’t demand agreement on a universal “social cost of carbon.” It works precisely because it tolerates disagreement yet channels it toward sustained, adaptive action.

In a world that cannot agree on the “price of the planet,” the goal is not perfect valuation but functional governance. Climate policy must be legitimate, precautionary, redistributive, and robust—capable of surviving disagreement, not waiting for it to disappear.

The Brazilian presidency of COP30 emphasizes “implementation and inclusion” as the transition from planning to delivery. Ministers attending Belém must thus deploy instruments that reflect this shift from negotiation of targets to implementation of frameworks that internalize environmental and social costs in politically sustainable ways.

By aligning instruments with political constituencies—future generations, developing countries, weaker states, and those with short- versus long-term preferences—COP30 can become a turning point not only for ambition but for resilience of the global climate regime.