Should Poor Countries Quit the COP Process?
We can't afford to lose both the climate and development battles
It’s 2025, and we are all bracing for what a Trump presidency could mean for climate and the energy transition. Like many in the climate community, I’ve been frantically consuming—and have even contributed to—the steady flow of takes on this topic. But the most thought-provoking piece I’ve read so far is a Foreign Policy article by Vijaya Ramachandran, a friend and colleague who has a real talent for turning climate discourse on its head to reveal surprising insights. Her argument? That poor countries should follow Trump’s lead and pull out of international climate negotiations. Now those are fighting words to begin the new year!
The core thesis of this intriguing piece is that the collapse of the Paris Agreement and COP process—triggered by Trump-led US exit—could actually benefit poor countries by freeing them from the “donor dance” of aligning with rich country climate priorities in exchange for elusive funding. This would allow them to focus on their own development goals, including investments in diverse energy sources, rather than adhering to externally imposed climate policies that constrain their growth. It's an interesting (and provocative!) idea, but has a number of flaws.
Let’s start with what the piece gets absolutely right—the glaring problems with our current global climate framework. The Paris Agreement and COP process have largely failed to deliver on their core promises. Rich countries continue to emit at high levels while virtue signaling about climate action. Meanwhile, they use climate concerns to deny poor, low-emitting countries financing for the very energy technologies needed for development.
The repurposing of development funding under the climate banner is particularly troubling. When over half of climate finance comes at the expense of development programs in health, education, and women's rights, something has clearly gone wrong. Poor countries shouldn’t have to sacrifice pressing development needs to jump through net-zero hoops at the behest of wealthy donors.
However, does this mean poor countries would benefit from the collapse of the Paris Agreement and the COP process? I'm skeptical, for three main reasons:
First, the "donor dance" between rich and poor countries extends far beyond climate policy. This lack of agency pervades nearly every aspect of development finance and policy, where Western donors set the agenda while developing country leaders follow. Even China's climate agnostic infrastructure financing comes with its own agenda and strings attached. We can't lay this larger dynamic at the feet of the Paris Agreement.
In fact, COP—for all its dysfunction—may be one of the few places where poor countries have some agency in international climate discourse, providing a high-profile platform to call out rich countries on their inaction and hypocrisy. Where else can a small island nation demand accountability from the world’s largest polluters? Indeed, the COP has evolved into a platform for these kinds of Global South vs. Global North recriminations. It might not be effective, but at least gives these nations a voice.
Second, while immediate climate action may not be the top priority for low-emitting poor countries (and they are absolutely right to focus on development), climate action by major emitters is crucial for their future. One of the worst possible outcomes for developing nations is if global emissions continue rising unchecked. A flawed COP process is better than no process at all when it comes to fostering dialogue and collaboration to reduce global emissions.
Third, we shouldn't conflate development policy with climate policy, even though they intersect. International climate policy is not the primary arena where the social and economic development aspirations of poor countries should be resolved. Yes, global climate policy should not actively hinder development aspirations of poor, low-emitting countries. More so because this apparent tension is fairly easy to resolve—prioritizing development in these countries increases their resilience and has little impact on emissions. While new and additional climate finance would strengthen our development and resilience arsenal, we might be waiting a long time. In the meantime, leave development finance to do the work of development.
So what, then, is the point of international climate policy? Primarily, to help steer high-emitting countries towards stopping and reversing climate change. Perhaps a more effective COP process is one with a laser-like focus on this core function rather than serving as a catch-all for a wide range of development and environmental issues? I’m not certain, but we clearly need to articulate a clearer function and metrics for COP and international climate cooperation. Otherwise we risk throwing the climate baby out with the development bath water, and vice versa.
As always, I’d love to hear what you think.