The geopolitics of climate change, defined by the interactions of leading emitters like the United States and China, reflects a complex interplay of economic systems, political ideologies, and global inequalities. As global temperatures rise, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and unbridled industrial growth are felt unevenly, revealing the fractured lines of climate justice and hegemony. With a potential second term of Donald Trump—a vocal critic of climate accords and proponent of fossil fuels—the future of climate politics appears precarious, especially in the context of U.S.-China relations. Both nations, emblematic of opposing political ideologies—capitalism and socialism—shape global climate policies that ripple across economies like India, Pakistan, Russia, and the Global South. Understanding these dynamics requires interrogating the political economy of climate change, the role of corporate capitalism, and alternative perspectives rooted in eco-Marxism and subaltern studies.
China and the U.S. collectively account for over 40% of global carbon emissions. China, as the world’s largest emitter, released approximately 11.47 billion metric tons of COâ‚‚ in 2022, while the U.S. contributed 5.4 billion metric tons. The trajectories of these emissions are tied to their political and economic models. The United States, driven by market liberalism, focuses on commodifying sustainable development, with private corporations like Tesla and ExxonMobil dominating renewable and fossil fuel energy sectors respectively. On the other hand, China’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics” blends state-led initiatives with capitalist production mechanisms, positioning itself as a leader in renewable energy technology while remaining heavily reliant on coal. The dual role of China—as both a leader in renewable energy investments and a major polluter—underscores the contradictions inherent in its development model. While Xi Jinping’s administration has pledged carbon neutrality by 2060 and launched initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with green commitments, these efforts are tempered by its continued dependence on coal-fired plants domestically and abroad. Conversely, the U.S. under Trump, with its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017 and emphasis on deregulating fossil fuel industries, symbolized a regression in global climate leadership. The return to such policies under another Trump presidency would likely exacerbate international tensions and undermine collective climate action. The political economy of climate change reveals stark contrasts in the contributions of different social classes. In industrialized nations, the eco-bourgeoisie, characterized by affluent consumers and corporations, drives disproportionate emissions through consumption patterns, luxury travel, and corporate activities. Meanwhile, the eco-proletariat, comprising working-class communities and informal laborers, disproportionately suffers the consequences of climate change despite minimal contributions to emissions.
Globally, this dynamic mirrors the divide between the Global North and South. High-emission countries like the U.S., China, and India dominate industrial production, while nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sub-Saharan African states face the brunt of climate disasters. For instance, Pakistan, responsible for less than 1% of global emissions, experienced devastating floods in 2022 that displaced millions. Similarly, Indian urban centers like Delhi, with hazardous air quality, contribute to smog that affects neighboring countries like Pakistan. These disparities highlight the need for a climate justice framework that centers equity and reparations.
Subaltern approaches to climate change emphasize the voices of marginalized populations, arguing that mainstream climate diplomacy often excludes their needs. As scholars like Robert Cox argue, “theory is always for someone and for some purpose,” suggesting that dominant frameworks reflect the interests of hegemonic powers. Climate negotiations at forums like COP29 often prioritize market-based solutions, such as carbon trading and offset mechanisms, which reinforce capitalist hegemony. Countries like the U.S. and China, with their significant economic leverage, dominate these discussions, sidelining smaller nations that demand reparations for loss and damage. In contrast, eco-Marxist perspectives critique the commodification of nature under capitalism. Scholars like John S. Dryzek and Jessica F. Green highlight how corporations externalize environmental costs to maximize profits, perpetuating ecological degradation. This approach underscores the structural barriers to meaningful climate action, rooted in global capitalism’s inherent contradictions.
Big Tech and multinational corporations play a dual role in climate change. Companies like Amazon and Google pledge carbon neutrality yet maintain global supply chains reliant on fossil fuels and exploitative labor practices in countries like China and India. While these corporations profit from green technology and sustainable branding, their actions often contradict their rhetoric. For instance, the production of renewable energy technologies like solar panels and electric vehicles relies heavily on rare earth minerals mined under environmentally destructive conditions.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 13 (Climate Action), embody a global commitment to combating climate change but remain hindered by the capitalist structures that prioritize profit over sustainability. The commodification of sustainability by Western nations contrasts sharply with the realities faced by industrial hubs like China and India, where environmental degradation is a byproduct of serving global markets. A second Trump presidency would likely amplify these tensions. Trump’s policies, favoring traditional energy sources and rejecting international climate accords, align with the interests of major polluters like India and China, which continue to rely on coal and oil. This trajectory risks undermining global climate goals, including the Paris Agreement’s target to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Furthermore, Trump’s alignment with corporate interests threatens to erode multilateral cooperation, a cornerstone of climate diplomacy.
The US-China relationship remains pivotal to global climate outcomes. While their rivalry hampers cooperation, their combined technological and economic capacities offer opportunities for innovation and leadership. For South Asia, fostering trilateral partnerships between the U.S., China, and regional powers like Pakistan and India could address transboundary pollution and promote green energy transitions. Initiatives like joint investments in renewable energy infrastructure and technology transfer could mitigate the region’s vulnerabilities. To navigate the politics of climate change, both nations must transcend their ideological differences and prioritize collective well-being over economic competition. This requires adopting a multipronged approach that integrates climate justice, addresses structural inequalities, and centers the voices of marginalized communities. As Gramsci reminds us, achieving a new equilibrium demands “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.” Only through sustained global cooperation and systemic reform can the world chart a path toward a sustainable and equitable future.
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shakeel Ahmad is Chief Executive of Global Strategic Institute for Sustainable Development (GSISD).
