We are living in an era defined by unprecedented human pressure on the Earth’s ecosystems, marked by climate change, glacial retreat, sea-level rise, glacial lake outburst floods, and mass species extinction. The Anthropocene has emerged as a defining concept in global diplomacy. Coined in the early 2000s by atmospheric chemist Paul Jozef Crutzen, the term describes a new geological epoch following the Holocene, in which human activity has become the dominant force shaping planetary systems. Once confined to geology, the Anthropocene now reframes how we understand power, security, and ethics in international relations.
The rise of the Anthropocene directly challenges traditional, state-centric models of global governance. Environmental crises such as climate change, ocean acidification, and biodiversity loss transcend national borders, rendering sovereignty-based approaches increasingly inadequate. Today, ecosystems, atmospheric systems, and even non-human actors are shaping the terrain of global politics. There is a growing mismatch between the irreversible nature and accelerating pace of ecological change and the short-term, transactional nature of diplomacy, underscoring the need for more far-sighted, long-term governance.
Security, in this epoch, must go beyond military threats to include ecological and environmental risks. Climate-induced displacement, water scarcity, and ecosystem collapse are now central concerns for global stability. Concepts such as planetary security and ecological stewardship emphasize that safeguarding Earth’s systems is inseparable from human survival. Ethics has also moved to the forefront: the Anthropocene demands recognition of intergenerational justice and equitable resource sharing, particularly given that the most vulnerable populations contribute least to climate disruption, yet suffer its worst effects.
A landmark moment came in July 2025 with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that all states, regardless of treaty membership, bear responsibility for preventing climate harm and compensating vulnerable nations. This decision established a new legal and moral architecture of accountability, significantly strengthening the claims of climate-vulnerable countries such as Nepal.
Similarly, the July 2025 China–EU climate agreement signaled a shift in the dynamics of great power relations. By linking climate action to economic stability and governance, these actors demonstrated that legitimacy in the 21st century increasingly depends on credible climate commitments. Climate cooperation is no longer a peripheral issue; it has become a core pillar of diplomatic engagement.
The economic stakes are equally significant. According to Deloitte, unchecked climate change could cost the global economy up to U.S. $178 trillion by 2070, whereas a rapid transition to net zero could generate U.S. $43 trillion in economic gains over the next five decades. For Nepal, the Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (2021) found that between 1971 and 2019, climate-induced disasters caused an annual average of 647 fatalities and losses totaling NPR 2.78 billion. These figures underscore how local impacts mirror global risks.
Nowhere is the contrast in climate diplomacy starker than in the United States. During his first term, President Donald Trump prioritized domestic energy independence by expanding fossil fuel production and withdrawing from international climate agreements such as the Paris Accord. His administration slashed contributions to global climate finance mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund, framing them as burdens on U.S. taxpayers, and adopted a transactional, sovereignty-first approach to diplomacy.
By contrast, President Joe Biden rejoined the Paris Accord, renewed multilateral engagement, and restored funding to international climate initiatives. His administration positioned climate change as a strategic priority, intertwining it with national security, energy transition, and global cooperation. The U.S. aimed to reassert leadership in multilateral climate diplomacy.
Trump’s second presidency has once again reversed course. Within his first 100 days, his administration withdrew from the Paris Accord, rolled back 145 environmental protections, downsized key agencies, halted greenhouse gas tracking, removed climate references from federal websites, and fast-tracked fossil fuel approvals. These starkly opposing approaches highlight how climate diplomacy has become a battleground for competing visions of global order: one rooted in transactional nationalism, the other in multilateralism and climate justice.
For small, climate-vulnerable nations, these shifts are not abstract debates. Nepal, which is set to graduate from Least Developed Country status in 2026, faces the risk of losing access to concessional finance and reduced negotiating leverage. Yet, its fragile Himalayan ecosystems, the water towers of Asia, give it unique diplomatic influence. At COP28 and the Sagarmatha Dialogue, Nepal successfully elevated mountain concerns onto the global stage, reshaping a discourse long dominated by coastal states. The emerging “mountain agenda” links Himalayan climate impacts to broader global challenges, including water security, glacial retreat, and biodiversity loss.
To remain influential in this shifting diplomatic landscape, Nepal must strengthen alliances with other mountain nations, advocate for simplified access to climate finance, and emphasize that adaptation and resilience in fragile ecosystems constitute global public goods. Its climate diplomacy must assert that the survival of mountain systems is inseparable from global environmental stability.
The Anthropocene underscores a central truth: climate diplomacy has become integral to international relations. The ICJ ruling, the China–EU partnership, and the divergent U.S. approaches all reveal how climate commitments increasingly define legitimacy, power, and justice on the world stage.
The accelerating retreat of Arctic sea ice in 2025, the most extreme on record, illustrates the growing urgency. Environmental degradation is no longer a background concern; it is a core driver of migration, conflict, volatility in the global economy, and geopolitical instability. As world leaders prepare for COP30 in Rio de Janeiro, the Anthropocene is more than an environmental concept; it is also a call to reimagine the ethics, structures, and purpose of global cooperation.
Diplomacy today is not only about resolving conflicts; it is about building a shared future for the planet. The risks are immense, but so is the opportunity to create a more sustainable, just, and resilient world.
