From the Poverty and Climate Agenda to the War Agenda

This article was originally published in my business column in Valor Econômico on January 16, 2025.

Jorge Arbache

The Sustainable Development Agenda was adopted by UN Member States in 2015 during the Summit dedicated to the topic. Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were designed to guide global efforts until 2030, aiming to promote a balance between economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection.

Born from an extensive negotiation and participation process, the so-called 2030 Agenda was considered the most significant manifestation of multilateralism since the creation of the UN.

Structured around five pillars—poverty eradication, combating climate change, promoting prosperity for all, fostering just and peaceful societies, and advancing global partnerships—the Agenda requires the mobilization of substantial financial, technological, and human resources, as well as public-private partnerships and extensive international cooperation. Many large companies, investors, banks, insurers, and investment funds have formally committed to these goals in unprecedented initiatives.

However, governments of wealthy countries argue that the climate emergency and increasingly frequent extreme natural events necessitate prioritizing climate actions such as emissions mitigation and energy transition. The private sector, a key player in financing these actions, has also shown greater interest in climate-related projects due to their more tangible and attractive financial returns. Conversely, initiatives that more directly impact poverty, education, or health, for example, have received less attention. Although, in theory, the SDGs and the climate agenda are complementary, in practice, this synergy has proven limited.

While it cannot be said that the climate agenda is "overriding" the SDGs, it is evident that the climate emergency has reshaped the priorities of developed countries. In practice, it is apparent that wealthy countries and large companies are modulating their engagement with the 2030 Agenda based on political and economic interests.

Developed countries pledged to mobilize up to $300 billion annually to support climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing nations. However, this amount is widely regarded as insufficient. After all, achieving the SDGs would require annual resources ranging from $5 to $7 trillion, according to UN estimates.

The lack of financing has intensified criticism from developing countries, which argue that the climate agenda reflects the interests of rich nations—historically the largest emitters of greenhouse gases—while the immediate challenges of poor countries are neglected.

More recently, however, another agenda has gained increasing attention from developed countries: defense. Geopolitical tensions and international conflicts are reshaping priorities, redirecting resources originally allocated to the climate agenda and the SDGs toward military spending and investments in advanced military technologies. In 2023, global defense spending reached $2.4 trillion, a historic record.

The competition for political and economic influence between the US and Europe on one side and China on the other is also significantly influencing this reprioritization. Paradoxically, the climate agenda is directly involved in this tension. China’s leadership in critical value chains and technologies for addressing climate change—such as solar and wind energy, electrolyzers, batteries, electric vehicles, and rare earth minerals—is seen as a significant threat by the West.

After all, the more the climate economy advances, the more China’s economic leadership consolidates. For this reason, Western politicians and strategists consider that slowing down the climate agenda, even temporarily, might be necessary to contain China’s rise.

In the European Union, commitments to the European Green Deal have been impacted by increased military spending, already affecting climate and social initiatives. Official Development Assistance funds (ODA) have been diverted to support allied countries and exploit critical natural resources in developing nations, such as minerals essential for the energy transition and military purposes.

This reprioritization is also evident in the growing militarization of the climate agenda. Multibillion-dollar climate-resilient military infrastructures and the use of renewable energy in military bases are among the areas receiving attention. However, these expenditures do not benefit civilian communities or contribute to the SDGs. Unsurprisingly, international environmental organizations are increasingly identifying and denouncing greenwashing and social-washing practices by developed countries. OECD data suggests that wealthy countries, which were already falling short of meeting their climate and social financing commitments, are likely to further reduce their engagement with the Sustainable Development Agenda in the coming years. Adding fuel to the fire, fossil fuel industry lobbies have pressured governments, banks, and companies to revisit their climate commitments.

The tide seems to be turning. Many developed countries are revising their climate commitments, extending deadlines, and loosening regulations, while investors, large banks, and companies are abandoning sustainability pledges. For many, these movements are seen as a harbinger of the end of the Sustainable Development Agenda—something unthinkable just a few years ago.

To safeguard the 2030 Agenda and mitigate the diversion of resources to the defense agenda, it will be necessary to strengthen multilateral mechanisms and institutions, avoid the militarization of issues related to climate and natural resources, increase transparency, improve budget governance, and promote education and public engagement on these topics. Without coordinated actions, resource redirection will exacerbate climate vulnerabilities, inequalities, and social tensions, further threatening global security and sustainable development progress.

In less than a decade, we have witnessed an alarming transition: moving from the most ambitious multilateral agenda in history to an agenda of fragmentation and war. Preventing the collapse of a collective vision for the future will require joint efforts and a renewed commitment to the principles of solidarity, environmental protection, and international cooperation.