Climate action is not for sale!

Feb 26, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is something profoundly small about big men who think the world cannot move unless Washington nods. At the World Sustainable Development Summit 2025, Vice President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo reportedly suggested that global climate targets may be difficult to achieve without stronger U.S. participation. In plain language, the argument seems to be this: without America at the table, the table collapses.

Let us start with the facts. At the last COP, held in Brazil — COP30 — the global climate conversation did not grind to a halt because Washington was absent. On the contrary, what the Brazil summit highlighted was that the world is quietly learning to walk without leaning on American crutches.

The Global South showed up. Latin America showed up. Africa showed up. Asia showed up. And China did more than show up — it arrived as a force.

While some in Georgetown still speak as though climate salvation must be stamped “Made in the USA,” China has been busy cornering the global market in solar panels, electric vehicles, battery storage, and critical minerals. It is China that is manufacturing at scale. It is China that is financing infrastructure across Africa and Latin America. It is China that is reshaping the clean energy supply chain.

Yet we are told — again — that without America, we may not achieve climate goals. That thinking belongs to another era.

It assumes the world is permanently wedded to Western domination. It assumes that global governance cannot evolve. It assumes that new power centers cannot emerge. It assumes that capital, and regulatory frameworks are frozen in Washington. It assumes that America is vital to the viability of carbon markets.

That is naïve.

Carbon markets are not a uniquely American invention. Regulations governing shipping and aviation are not drafted in the Oval Office. Methane protocols do not descend from Capitol Hill like tablets from Sinai.

The International Maritime Organization sets shipping standards. The International Civil Aviation Organization regulates aviation emissions. Multilateral frameworks govern methane pledges. Yes, the United States is influential. But influential is not indispensable.

To say that without U.S. involvement it would be “very, very difficult” to achieve climate goals is to underestimate the rest of the world — and to underestimate ourselves.

We in Guyana pride ourselves on our sovereignty and independence. Yet when it comes to climate diplomacy, we still sound as though we are waiting for instructions.

Vice President Jagdeo proudly cites Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy. He reminds us that we are the size of the United Kingdom, that 86 percent of our land is covered in primary forest, that we have one of the lowest deforestation rates in the world. He notes that we monetized 30 percent of our forest carbon for US$750 million.

All of that is commendable.

But here is the uncomfortable question: if we have monetized our forests, if we are expanding oil production to 1.5 to 2 million barrels per day in the next three years, if we claim we can “prove” that massive oil extraction and sustainability can coexist — then why do we sound so uncertain about global climate progress without Washington?

There is another contradiction. We are told that we will soon produce up to 2 million barrels of oil per day — per day — and that economics must shape climate policy. “Nobody argues with economics,” we are told.

To insist that economics must shape climate policy is to invert the moral order of the crisis. It reduces an existential environmental emergency to a balance sheet calculation. Climate change is a planetary threat grounded in science, not profit margins. When economics is allowed to “shape” climate policy, what often follows is delay, dilution, and justification — forests are protected only if they can be sold, emissions are reduced only if it is profitable, and oil is pumped as long as the revenue flows. That is not stewardship; it is opportunism dressed up as pragmatism. It converts environmental responsibility into a marketplace transaction and treats the atmosphere like a commodity. Instead of asking what survival demands, we ask what returns are acceptable.

And then there is artificial intelligence.

We are told AI will bring “great challenges” and “great rewards.” That is not a policy position. That is a greeting-card statement. Every technology in history has brought risks and rewards. The question is: what is Guyana’s strategy?

Are we investing in digital literacy? Are we protecting data sovereignty? Are we creating regulatory safeguards? Are we building local capacity? Or are we waiting again for the United States — or China — to define the rules?

AI will reshape labour markets, governance, surveillance, and inequality. To treat it as a vague dual-edged sword is not leadership. It is hesitation.

The world is changing. Power is diffusing. Climate diplomacy is evolving. Clean energy markets are shifting eastward. Multipolarity is no longer a theory — it is a fact.

To cling to the idea that nothing substantial can be achieved without America is to misread the times. It is to underestimate emerging economies. It is to undervalue regional alliances. It is to shrink our imagination.

The world will move — with or without Washington. The only real question is whether Guyana will move with it… or whether we will forever look over our shoulder waiting for someone else to lead.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)      

---

• Bharrat Jagdeo, climate action, COP30, Global South, Peeping Tom

---