Philipp Pattberg

For the past three decades, the world has operated under a shared set of rules: democracy, the rule of law, open markets, and cooperation between nations. This “liberal world order” shaped everything from global trade to human rights, and it also gave us landmark environmental agreements, like the Paris Agreement on climate change or the Montreal Protocol, which successfully healed the ozone layer. These achievements weren’t accidental. They were built on trust, transparency, and the belief that countries could work together to tackle shared challenges. But today, that order is quickly unravelling. Authoritarian regimes are rising, countries are turning inward, and trust in global institutions is fading. All of this is happening just as climate change, biodiversity loss, and inequality demand urgent, united action. The question is no longer whether the world order is changing, but how we can protect the environment in a fragmented, unpredictable future where trust among states is low and the egos of leaders are ever expanding.

The liberal world order wasn’t just about individual rights or global trade, it was a blueprint for how countries worked together. At its core were values like democracy, the rule of law, and multilateralism. These principles enabled environmental progress in three key ways. First, they created trust and transparency: contracts like the Paris Agreement were built on the idea that countries would hold each other accountable, with regular reviews and public pressure keeping governments and society at large on track. Second, they provided shared platforms: institutions like the United Nations gave nations a space to negotiate and compromise, even when they disagreed. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), for example, brought nearly 200 countries to the table. And third, they leveraged market incentives: open economies encouraged innovation, rewarding businesses that went green and accelerating the growth of renewable energy and sustainable practices.

But what happens when these foundations come under pressure? Today, the world is splitting along at least three fault lines, each with profound implications for global environmental governance. The first is the tension between democratization and authoritarianism. The rise of authoritarian regimes is reshaping global environmental policies in contradictory ways. China, for instance, has become a leader in renewable energy but also funds coal projects abroad through its Belt and Road Initiative. Meanwhile, Brazil’s shifting policies on the Amazon, from protection to exploitation and back again, show how quickly environmental priorities can change under different leaders. The second fault line is the clash between economic integration and protectionism. Countries are retreating behind economic barriers, with trade wars and “local-first” policies making it harder to coordinate on global challenges like carbon pricing or deforestation. The U.S.-China rivalry, for example, has spilled over into climate diplomacy, complicating efforts to align on emissions targets. The third shift is the move from multilateralism to minilateralism. Broad, inclusive agreements are giving way to smaller coalitions of powerful nations. The G20, for instance, now plays an outsized role in global decision-making, often sidelining smaller countries. While these “mini-lateral” groups can act quickly, they risk leaving critical voices, for example those of the most affected nations facing existential threats, out of the conversation.

So what does the future hold? Based on current trends, four scenarios emerge, each with its own risks and opportunities. The first is a Fragmented Planet, where countries go their own way, leading to a patchwork of conflicting environmental rules. Progress in one region is undermined by backsliding in another. Imagine a world where Europe bans single-use plastics, but Asia and Africa become dumping grounds for global waste, a global game of Whac-A-Mole, with the environment as the loser. The second scenario is Authoritarian Green, where a handful of powerful authoritarian regimes dictate environmental policies, prioritizing efficiency and control over fairness. China’s top-down approach to renewable energy offers a glimpse of this future: rapid progress, but with little room for dissent or local input. The third possibility is Local Solutions, where cities, businesses, and communities take the lead, bypassing gridlocked national governments. From Amsterdam’s circular economy initiatives to Patagonia’s sustainable business model, local actors are already driving change. But can these efforts scale up to meet global challenges? The final scenario is a New Multilateralism, where countries rebuild trust and adapt new global institutions to fit a more diverse, multipolar world. The UNFCCC, for example, could become more flexible, including voices from rising powers and Indigenous communities without getting bogged down in bureaucracy. And fossil fuel lobbying. This scenario offers hope, but it requires bold leadership and a willingness to compromise, qualities in short supply.

The road ahead won’t be easy, but there are paths forward. Global institutions like the UNFCCC need to evolve, becoming more adaptable and inclusive. This could mean creating faster decision-making processes or giving non-state actors, such as cities and businesses, a more formalized seat at the table. Local governments, businesses, and NGOs are already filling gaps left by national governments, and supporting these efforts with funding, networks, and visibility can accelerate progress. In a world where power politics dominate, accountability and transparency are also key. Civil society must push for open data, independent reviews, and public participation in environmental decision-making. The liberal world order may be fading, but the need for global cooperation has never been greater. The future of our planet will depend on whether we can build new rules that are inclusive, adaptable, and bold enough to meet the challenges ahead. This isn’t just a task for politicians or diplomats, it’s a call for society as a whole. What can we do? Stay informed. Support innovative solutions in your community. Demand accountability from leaders. The choices we make today will shape the environment our children inherit. The question is this: Will we rise to the occasion, or will we let fragmentation and short-term thinking define our future?