Once again the world is preparing for a climate change negotiation in Poland. Hype is surrounding the event. Climate change communities are busy in scheduling their preferred debates and events. Urgency to tackle the issue calls for collectiveness and shared efforts. Unfortunately, the world is moving in the other direction and the divide is becoming sharper as the urgency demands more cooperation. The Paris agreement is a ray of hope in the right direction but the hope is lost somewhere after President Trump’s election in the US. After withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, President Trump and his team is doing everything to defy the reality of climate change. However, the world over including the US, has been struck by many climatic disasters in recent years. Latest IPCC special report on 1.5 degree is another desperate effort to convince the world community that climate change requires a war strategy to handle it. It requires a war against climate change and factors causing and contributing to climate change. A war supported and participated by all, without any exception and without any regard to benefit of loss. Regrettably, the world is moving in the other direction. A war which requires unity is entangled in a web of division and self-interests. Climate changing is not treating or distinguishing on the basis of nationality or race but humans are scattered on the basis of nationality and races. So there is a danger that humanity and planet Earth with all its biotic life will suffer a defeat even before we realize the threat. It is being portrayed as if the ‘war was lost at the beginning’. Humans and the Earth is suffering due to greedy and selfish leaders – hiding behind their self-portrayed fears and self-defined interests. The economic and social cost of climate change is on the rise every passing day. It has been estimated that due to climate change 1.5 trillion pounds will be lost every year, according to a study conducted by United Nations University and UNDP. Reason would be to increase in the incident of heat, heat waves and its implications on productivity of labour. Agriculture labour would be one of the hardest hit areas. Productivity losses for small farmers would be beyond their capacity and it would lead to food insecurity and sharp decreases in income. Losses will also have implications for health and education of family. It is has been calculated that India every year will be losing 340 billion pound sterling on this front followed by Indonesia (188), Malaysia (188) and Thailand (113). Estimates are only considering the impact of bad working conditions, they do not include the disaster cost or opportunity cost.Despite the implications the world community is still struggling to find a viable solution or mechanism to battle climate change. Paris Agreement was a desperate effort to combat this but it had no tangible results. All submissions indicate that if the agreement is implemented to the letter, still temperature rise would be beyond 3 degrees. It is beyond the limit of 1.5, which has been suggested in the last special report by IPCC October 2018. The issue is not that the world does not the know the consequences, issue is that no one wants to move beyond this. Countries are negotiating on the basis of their national interests rather than selfish interests. World is stuck between the debate on mitigation and adaptation. Developed countries are focusing on efforts to mitigate and developing and least developed countries are championing adaptation. Both sides have their own arguments and justifications and both have valid points to prove. But both sides are not recognizing that their story is only a part of the bigger picture and they need to adjust to reality.Developed countries need to adapt at, as it is as important as mitigation. Rather, it is a matter of survival in some countries. The world cannot move forward only in one direction it needs a balanced approach and due consideration to address urgent needs. Developing countries should also recognize the fact that without mitigation, adaptation has a limit. Beyond that limit adaptation will not work. Second favorite playground is historical responsibility and matter of equity. The West is responsible for the rapid climate change in the post industrial period. They need to pay for their past but Southern countries should also realize that this is not an excuse to not work. Southern countries should also take responsibility and divert resources according to their financial health. Bangladesh is good example which is using hybrid methodology, on one side diverting resources from its vault and on the other side asking developed countries to assist them. Developed countries should also look for hybrid approaches in their strategy. They can focus on mitigation but they should also give due importance to adaptation and justifiable needs of developing and the least developed countries.In debate on historical responsibility and equity one pillar is completely missing, the business and industrialist community. In post industrial period, it was business and industry which accumulated the most of the benefits. We can find a number of huge business empires which emerged during that period. Apart from governments they are also equally responsible for contributing to climate change. They can say, they paid taxes to the government but the point is that they paid for social and economic reasons not for the deterioration of environment or climate. Now they should also contribute for their past and make serious efforts to play a role in environment friendly and climate compatible development. Business should not take this as matter of choice or act of philanthropy but as a responsibility and compensation for past activities.Southern countries should also take responsibility and divert resources according to their financial health. Bangladesh is good example which is using hybrid methodology, on one side diverting resources from its vault and on the other side asking developed countries to assist them. Developed countries should also look for hybrid approaches in their strategyPresently, the UNFCCC is not able to convince all players that their individual fight is to stop disaster from hitting humanity. In recent times, climate change has also permeated the security domain. Syria, Yemen, Sudan etc. conflicts are being attributed to climate factors in addition to governance or other factors. Conflicts will continue to be exacerbated due to climate change, as has been acknowledged by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. There would also be a rise in number of climate migrants and refugees across the world. The world can continue to build walls but not viable solutions.Urgency demands a unanimous effort to tackle the issue of climate change. For meaningful negotiations, there is need to give up differences. Both sides, North and South need to understand that there is a need to make a comprise on their hardlines and come up with ideas to find a common ground. There is a need to adopt a balanced approach for implementing historical responsibility, equity and adaptation and mitigation plans.Civil Society can play a role here but they need to come out of their hidden geographical love. Civil Society claims they work for humanity, so they should advocate for humanity and not for geographical boundaries. They can take the lead to convince their respective stakeholders to work on a viable solution for humanity and planet Earth. Starting point for advocacy can be a campaign to discourage consumption of fossil fuels for attending UNFCCC meetings. There can be alternatives to steer the process of negotiation which ensures less use of fossil fuel to attend the meetings. Civil society can demonstrate this by applying this on its work and cutting short their excessive paranoia of dialogue and meetings. It will help to divert resources to real time implementation and research for tackling climate change.Lastly UNFCCC should pursue three key players, States, Business and Civil Society to be serious in dealing with climate change. They should sit together and decide the agenda of the future. There should be no blame game or practice of shifting responsibility. The state should clearly spell the laws and regulations for climate change control. A business should take responsibility for implementing climate compatible development models and environment friendly interventions. Civil society should combat this at society level and convince people to be climate and environment friendly consumers. If UNFCCC is not able to engage them for their required work, the negotiations will be continued till the next round and there will be no result. It will tarnish the name of the UN’s system and the world leaders, in turn wreaking havoc on humanity and planet Earth. Common people have already questioned the relevance of negotiations, dubbing it as a ‘seriously non-serious’ issue.The writer is the Chief Operating Officer of the Zalmi FoundationPublished in Daily Times, December 8th 2018.