Climate is a public good, treat it as one

As the world’s climate negotiators meet in Belém for COP30, they converge not only on a city at the gateway to the Amazon but on a test of collective memory. For all the new pledges, roadmaps, and thematic days, the essential truth risks being forgotten, climate stability is a global public good. And unless the world begins to understand that economically, politically, and morally, the ambitions of COP30 may dissolve into yet another cycle of unmet promises.

In economic terms, a public good is something from which no one can be excluded and whose use by one person does not diminish its availability to others. Law enforcement, street lighting, and national defence are standard examples. The atmosphere is another such public good, a protective buffer that regulates temperature, rainfall, carbon exchange, and the conditions for life itself. The Earth’s temperature, the health of its forests and oceans, and the predictability of weather regimes are shared and indivisible benefits. Yet because everyone benefits, no single actor has sufficient incentive to pay the full cost of protecting them. This classic problem of under provision sits at the heart of climate negotiations, and it is precisely the logic that seems to fade when countries gather at summits such as COP30.

COP30 is being held under the theme of igniting a decade of acceleration and delivery, a framing used both by Brazil and by UN leadership. It resonates with the urgency expressed by developing countries demanding equitable and concessional finance, and by scientists warning that the window for staying below 1.5°C has nearly closed. UN Chief António Guterres has called the world’s failure to meet that target a moral failure and deadly negligence, a rebuke that lands heavily as fires, floods, and droughts reshape daily life across continents. Whether COP30 will respond with a public good mindset or fall back into patterns of transactional bargaining remains uncertain.

Some of the initiatives emerging from Belém gesture towards a more collective understanding. One prominent example is the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, a financing mechanism designed to preserve forests such as those in the Amazon, Congo, and Indonesian archipelagos. Forests absorb carbon, protect biodiversity, and modulate rainfall patterns, they remain perhaps the clearest illustration of a natural system whose benefits spill across borders. Early pledges from countries including Norway, Brazil, Indonesia, and France provide early momentum, and the proposed shift to long term, predictable funding rather than short term project cycles suggests recognition of forests as shared planetary infrastructure. If implemented faithfully, the Facility could serve as a model for how global public goods are financed and governed.

Belém also saw the launch of the Belém Health Action Plan, with countries and philanthropies committing resources to strengthen health systems against climate impacts. The logic is similarly global, disease outbreaks, heat related mortality, air pollution, and water insecurity impose burdens that ripple across borders and markets. Treating climate resilient health systems as a public good changes the framing. Instead of disaster relief provided after crises, it becomes a shared investment in collective security. The growing focus on wildfire resilience reflects this logic as well. Smoke from massive fires does not respect national boundaries, nor do the associated spikes in carbon emissions or ecological damage. Efforts to incorporate Indigenous land stewardship, fire management techniques, and accessible finance signal that policymakers are, at least rhetorically, acknowledging the trans-boundary nature of climate risks.

But alongside these promising signals are reminders of how fragile the public good framing remains. Reports of a four lane highway being carved through parts of the Amazon to accommodate summit related activity, despite official denials that it is formally linked to COP30, expose the contradictions that can arise when symbolism and politics overshadow substance. The Tibetan Plateau is warming nearly three times faster than the rest of the world, triggering rapid glacial retreat, permafrost degradation, and destabilisation of major river systems that sustain nearly two billion people. Tibet, however, is noticeably underrepresented in global climate discourse. Indigenous communities, whose stewardship is indispensable to protecting forests, continue to protest exclusion and dispossession, as decisions are made in their name without their participation. These tensions reveal how climate governance still too often treats public goods as abstract assets rather than lived and local realities.

More critically, the debate over finance continues to erode collective ambition. The Baku to Belém Roadmap aims to mobilise at least 1.3 trillion dollars annually by 2035 for mitigation and adaptation. Yet behind the impressive numbers lies a long standing divide. Wealthier nations prefer to emphasise private finance and leveraging, while developing countries insist that public finance is the cornerstone of any credible climate regime. They are correct, public goods require public investment. Relying primarily on private capital to safeguard the atmosphere introduces market incentives where none belong and risks subordinating global welfare to profitability. As long as wealthy countries sidestep their responsibilities, the public good of climate stability will continue to be underfunded. If climate stability is understood as a shared benefit, then finance, technology, and adaptation must be jointly produced, and developed countries cannot shirk their obligations.

The erosion of a public good mindset also threatens accountability. Successful public goods, whether urban infrastructure or disease eradication programmes, depend on clear rules, transparency, and institutions capable of enforcing commitments. Climate finance has long suffered from vague pledges and reliance on political goodwill. Unless COP30 strengthens governance around funds like the Forest Facility or the Belém Health Action Plan, these mechanisms could remain aspirational rather than transformative.

Recovering the idea of climate as a public good also requires placing justice at the centre. The greatest limitation of public good theory is that it is agnostic about fairness, it describes incentives but not moral obligations. Yet climate change is not a neutral economic problem. It is a story of colonial legacies, unequal exposure, and historical emissions. Treating climate as a public good must therefore mean more than treating the atmosphere as shared. It must also mean acknowledging differentiated responsibilities, redistributing resources, and elevating the leadership of those most affected. Indigenous communities, small island nations, and frontline populations are not simply stakeholders, they are co-producers of global public goods such as forest protection, biodiversity stewardship, and low carbon development pathways.

Belém could mark a turning point by reclaiming climate stability as a global public good. The symbolism of hosting the summit at the edge of the Amazon is powerful. But symbolism alone is not enough. The world needs concrete, transparent, and just mechanisms that reflect the logic of a global public good.