The world’s attention has been focused on Paris for the past few weeks because of the horrific attacks that claimed many innocent lives and brought to focus the issue of terrorism perpetrated by terrorists. Just days after the attacks, however, Paris is now playing host to all nations of the world to discuss another important issue of our time: that of climate change. As these marathon climate talks in Paris come to a close later at the end of this week, it is hoped that the world’s leaders have been able to come to an agreement that takes cognisance of the climate’s impact upon our individual and collective lives, and have agreed upon rules that seek to mitigate some of the wrongs of the past, in addition to institutionalising sustainable norms for future behaviour. But even though this latest conference on the subject of climate takes place in a city with a sombre yet urgent mood, it would be wise to not expect a lot of binding legislation resulting from the conference. For one thing, the issue of climate change brings into sharp relief the problems of collective action on what is possibly the grandest stage of them all. As individual states, we are able to understand what needs to be done in order to limit any further damage to the environment but as a collective entity we are still mired in confusion and any consensus on coherent policy evades us. There was much hubbub around the previous climate talks in Rio, Kyoto and Copenhagen that are largely responsible for producing what little we have in the way of transnational environmental legislation but it is clearly not enough. As we keep utilising more and more of the earth’s limited natural resources and polluting the atmosphere further as a result, there is a sense of foreboding as to which would give way first, the planet or the human species. What is perhaps different from previous efforts at coming to a consensus regarding the planet’s fate is that, this time around, the rich, industrial nations are more aware of the role they have played towards damaging the environment, and are willing to limit their use of fossil fuels so that a more sustainable outcome can be achieved. In this regard, besides the individual domestic legislation undertaken to introduce carbon taxes or carbon budgets in some states, particularly notable is the agreement finalised between China and the US — two of the biggest polluters among all countries — to limit their dependence on natural resources and switch to sustainable energy resources. The agreement itself is a landmark but it remains to be seen how effective it will be at binding the two economic giants into a mutual partnership that entails limiting the domestic benefits they stand to gain. At issue is also the idea of climate justice, whereby developing countries that are dependent on utilising natural resources towards economic growth resist any restrictions on the use of such resources imposed by developed nations, whose economies themselves largely are a product of abusing their natural habitats. To this end, Pakistan lost a golden opportunity last week in Paris to voice its concerns on a global forum, when India’s Prime Minister (PM), Narendra Modi, took the stage to raise the issue, much to the chagrin of developed nations. This particular facet of environmental policy has been around for as long as there have been concerns related to climate change, and it is certainly a valid question that has to be addressed. Even though many of the countries in the western hemisphere — despite being the leading polluters — would like to see the rest of the world limit its dependence on fossil fuels, some kind of formula that alleviates the valid concerns of the developing world will have to devised if there is to be any hope of making countries follow agreed-upon legislation. The simple truth of the matter is that climate change has to be understood as an ever-present constraint on our growth and development from this point onwards. All decisions regarding the economy and society will have to be balanced against the extent of environmental damage that could result from policy in any and all fields. Furthermore, growth, development, urbanisation, modernity and prosperity are but some of the many normative concepts that should be re-envisioned with a climate-based qualifier to them. Because even though climate change can be thought of purely as a scientific issue, it contains within itself fundamentally socio-political implications. Migrations and mass movements, fuelled by food shortages or natural disasters, are very much political issues that can sometimes be directly linked to climate change. Similarly, ideas revolving around development, foreign aid, democratisation and globalisation are all inherently linked to climate change. A bigger concern, however, is how, despite an almost unanimous consensus on the extent of devastation that we as a species have brought upon the planet, the issue still remains mired in petty politics and nationalistic rhetoric. Issues like global warming and climate change are of an unprecedented nature because of their scale and the indirect nature of how changing climate patterns affect various populations irrespective of the contribution that such populations may or may not have made towards the deterioration of the atmosphere. In this vein, some time for adaptation and transitioning to a new way of life is required but, unfortunately, we have delayed taking action on this issue for far too long, to the point where no meaningful action can now reverse the course of nature. Everything from this point onwards is mere damage control. The real tragedy is that even if we can succeed in agreeing upon taking care of our planet in the future, the only thing that we can aspire to anymore will be to limit the magnitude of the cataclysmic effects of the climate that we already witness with alarming frequency. The unfortunate populations that have been at the receiving end of nature’s fury can testify to the indiscriminate nature of devastation that has taken place in the wake of climate change. Keeping this in mind, it will be extremely beneficial if we can stop pointing fingers at each other and instead agree to just and sustainable future growth. The author is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations