Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Entwicklung und Humanitäre Hilfe
Outside view (EN)
In an increasingly fractured world marked by unilateralism and weakened climate cooperation, the Global South must close ranks in climate talks and beyond.
Outside view Avantika Goswami
With the latest round of punitive tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, Brazil’s President Lula announced he would engage with BRICS leaders to address the dismantling of multilateralism by the U.S. regime. It was a rare proactive moment from the bloc — but one that should become far more common. Civil society must amplify shared struggles to foster Global South unity, empowering BRICS and other developing countries to lead the fight against climate change with agency, voice, and development needs at the centre.
Countries of the Global South — often grouped under the G77 — share histories of colonialism, underdevelopment, and unequal global governance. Despite internal differences, moments of unity have sparked crucial political change.
The 1955 Bandung Conference stands as a foundational example, bringing Southern countries together to oppose colonialism and affirm non-alignment — achieving “mythical status,” in the words of Filipino activist Walden Bello. Southern leaders across diverse geographies and political tendencies declared that “colonialism in all its manifestations is an evil which should speedily be brought to an end.”
Decades later, at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, developing countries played a decisive role in embedding the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities at the heart of the newly formed UNFCCC. During the COVID-19 crisis, Global South power reemerged, with India and South Africa leading a TRIPS waiver call at the WTO and Cuba dispatching doctors worldwide. At COP27 in Egypt, the G77 united to secure a Loss and Damage Fund—culminating a 30-year effort led by island states.
Southern G20 presidencies — Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa — have since amplified urgent issues: the debt crisis, reforming financial institutions, and green industrialisation. The 2025 BRICS declaration reaffirmed commitment to multilateralism, called for a greater voice for emerging markets, and expressed support for Palestinian self-determination.
These moments of unity arise against a backdrop of fragmented alliances. The South is no monolith—changing leadership, geopolitics, and ties with the North continually undermine coalition-building.
Global North actors often exploit these shifts. Media narratives aim to drive wedges in Southern blocs, singling out emerging economies as “blockers” in climate talks — a tactic Sunita Narain calls “pitting the poor against the poor.” At COP29 in Baku, for example, a UK reporter asked, “Why is India blocking a special carveout for LDCs and SIDS?” — revealing the familiar wedge strategy, whilst flattening the nuance and complexity of the negotiations.
Still, Southern governments are not beyond critique. Within the expanding BRICS+ bloc of 20 countries, mistrust and lack of coordination persist. Transparency and civil society access are limited, and several members are authoritarian or corrupt. Climate analysts often highlight BRICS’ fossil-fuel dependence. While valid, such critiques sometimes miss nuance—many high-income countries share similar path dependencies. What matters more are shared challenges—rising energy demand, industrial ambitions—and emerging opportunities in green technology and global governance reform.
BRICS+ members represent 48% of the global population. In 2024, their per-capita primary fossil fuel consumption averaged 33,375.68 kWh (excluding Ethiopia), compared with 43,595.58 kWh in high-income countries. Renewables averaged 2,873.37 kWh, versus 7,531.68 kWh in high-income nations.
Despite fossil dominance — BRICS+ produced 48% of global fossil fuel output in 2024 — renewables are rapidly growing. The bloc now generates 51% of global solar power, up from 15% a decade ago. China leads 74% of global solar and wind construction, and India achieved an NDC target five years early.
This layering of renewables onto fossil infrastructure — rather than abrupt phase-out — marks the likely path for developing economies. Correspondingly, the 2025 BRICS Statement calls for a just, inclusive energy transition while recognizing the continued role of fossil fuels. Green industrial policy is also rising; clean energy and green manufacturing are central to BRICS’ strategies. Political economist Ilias Alami calls this a “new geopolitics of green connectivity,” rooted in “polyalignment” rather than the non-alignment of the past.
China looms large in this geopolitics of climate: Leading in emissions, but also compelling in its role as a climate actor, “lighting up the world with solar panels” and exporting emissions reductions abroad. Economic historian Adam Tooze emphasized that Chinese photovoltaics (PV) and BYD may well be the “tools of our salvation. For some developing countries, China is both a formidable giant that has outpaced all others in growth and a power whose economic and trade leverage must not be over-relied upon lest it be turned into a weapon; others are eager to engage.
Emerging green partnerships among Southern countries could form the backbone of sustainable coalitions. But this requires a renewed Southern narrative on climate and development, with principles aligned to today’s realities.
The US is, and always has been, an unreliable partner — transactional, coercive and warmongering. The Western world is struggling through its own “polycrisis”, witnessing the failure of its institutions, policies and the horrors inflicted by its military complex abroad. The current moment has been characterised in various ways, as turbulent and uncertain, as ‘productive incoherence’ in global governance, and as a moment to turn polycrisis into ‘polytunity’.
For the Global South, that has always been battered by competing crises — debt, inflation, conflict and food insecurity — there is an opportunity to use this disruption to birth something new.
But what should this Southern vision look like? There are multiple calls to action: a time to rewrite the rules, acknowledge multipolarity, focus on localisation, forge new green alliances, de-dollarize, promote regional integration, advance green industrial policy and more. The growing technological and industrial foundations discussed above can be used to shape a new, green development agenda.
But unity is essential to turn this fragile moment into lasting power — whether through BRICS+ or another grouping. As Bello notes, the “spirit of Bandung has been a constant spur to many political actors to reproduce it in its imagined pristine form”. That spirit will not return on its own — we must rebuild it. In climate talks and beyond, the South must close ranks.
The emerging green agency of developing countries is too often ignored by mainstream governance, which focuses narrowly on emissions or phase-outs — marginalizing development needs, finance, and technology transfer. Civil society must shift the narrative: spotlighting common struggles, amplifying collective agency, and forging South–South solidarity. Only through unity can the Global South turn today’s polycrisis into lasting, climate-proof prosperity.
Avantika Goswami leads the Climate Change Program at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) — a research and advocacy thinktank in New Delhi, India. She has 12+ years of experience across the public, private and non-profit sectors, with an interdisciplinary background in climate and economic research, sustainability programme management, and management consulting.Her interests lie at the intersection of climate science and political economy, and her current work focuses on transformative solutions to rapidly reduce carbon emissions while centering climate justice and equity. At CSE, she is leading the Institute’s climate policy research and advocacy spanning climate finance, mitigation ambition, carbon markets, and trade.
In the section Outside view, Global Responsibility gives experts the opportunity to comment and share their views on current and relevant development issues. The aim is to facilitate development policy debates and promote democratic discourse. The authors are solely responsible for the content. The Outside views do not reflect the official positions of the funding body International Partnerships Austria and of Global Responsibility.
With funding from
