Climate action: the middle child in the political landscape

In recent years, climate action policies have been on the rise. With record-breaking innovation, newly installed green energy capacity, and structures like the Emissions Trading System pushing companies to go green, it once seemed possible that achieving our climate goals could become a reality. Of course, we still needed to accelerate progress, but at the very least, the world was moving in the right direction.

Compared to that momentum, today’s situation feels like a setback. Climate has been pushed increasingly to the background, overshadowed by global turmoil and a political shift in focus toward defense. It now feels like climate action is viewed as a so-called “first-world problem” — something only those with no other worries can afford to care about. But this couldn’t be further from the truth.

It all came to a head this week at the NATO summit, where 32 member countries pledged to increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP. Since governments can’t magically create more money, that increase will inevitably require cuts or budget reallocations. Almost instinctively, climate seems poised to take the fall — again. When leaders were asked how this defense commitment aligns with existing climate goals, the summit went quiet. “Flexibility for climate goals” seems to be the only producible answer politicians offer when confronted with these questions. But if climate policy was once as rigid as steel, it is now becoming as flexible as a politician’s promise during an election season.

Why is climate action always treated like the proverbial middle child in the political household — present but ignored, never the priority? Let’s be clear: climate goals are not a luxury concern for developed nations. Without decisive action, we’re looking at a future filled with endless heatwaves, daily floods and fires, food and water scarcity, mass displacement of hundreds of millions, the collapse of biodiversity, and the breakdown of governmental, economic, and social systems.

 

At first glance, one might argue that climate change is not as acute a threat as, say, war. But on closer examination, that logic doesn’t hold. Climate action needs to happen now precisely because, without early intervention, it becomes virtually impossible to effect meaningful change in the time we have left. To use a defense analogy: if tanks and armies took 25 years to build, and you knew a war was coming in 2050, you’d start preparing now. Climate change is that war — and we already know it’s coming.

So maybe the issue isn’t the urgency of the threat, but the timeline of the payoff. Defense spending shows tangible results within two years. Climate action may not yield visible benefits for a decade — and even then, “visible” may be a stretch. Most people can imagine war. Very few can picture a world undone by climate inaction, because nothing on that scale has ever happened in modern history. Paying taxes to prevent something you understand is easier than paying for something abstract. And of course, this is where politics comes in. Instant gratification is often used to criticize the younger generation, yet it lies at the heart of political strategy. Politicians chase short-term wins that bring quick rewards in polls and votes — long-term strategy often falls by the wayside.

So, is that it? Is climate action doomed to be neglected simply because it doesn’t align with short-term political gains? Not necessarily, but we must act.

First, climate funding needs to become smarter. It should focus on dual-use strategies, where climate policy aligns with today’s more “urgent” global challenges. For example, defense and climate can go hand in hand: protecting strategic marine assets could involve nature-inclusive infrastructure that benefits both national security and the environment. In this way, policymakers are more inclined to support climate initiatives, and funding can be more efficiently shared. Second, the responsibility lies with all of us. We must hold our policymakers and politicians accountable. Keep the conversation alive. Make it known that your vote can be won by those who take the climate crisis seriously. It might feel like one more issue on an already overflowing agenda, but it is vital that climate policy doesn’t slip into obscurity.

Don’t forget the middle child.