Green Technology, Global Power, and Climate Diplomacy: Emerging Dynamics in International Politics

Climate change has evolved from an environmental concern into a defining variable of global power politics. The transition toward green technology—renewable energy systems, electric mobility, hydrogen fuel, carbon capture, and critical mineral supply chains—is reshaping the architecture of international relations. This paper examines how technological innovation in climate mitigation has become a strategic instrument of statecraft, influencing global power hierarchies, trade alignments, and diplomatic negotiations.

Drawing on a qualitative and policy-analytical approach, the study explores the intersection of green industrial policy, technological competition, and climate diplomacy. It argues that states are increasingly leveraging clean energy leadership not only to meet sustainability goals but also to secure geopolitical influence, economic advantage, and strategic autonomy. The emergence of carbon border adjustments, climate finance mechanisms, and technology-transfer debates illustrates how environmental cooperation is simultaneously a site of rivalry.

The paper further analyzes the implications for Global South countries, particularly in terms of access to finance, technology equity, and participation in supply chains for critical minerals. By situating green technology within broader frameworks of international political economy and non-traditional security, the study highlights the dual character of climate diplomacy as both cooperative and competitive.

Ultimately, the article contends that the global energy transition is not merely an environmental transformation but a reconfiguration of international power structures, with long-term consequences for global governance, multilateralism, and sustainable development. 

Green Technology, Climate Diplomacy, International Relations, Energy Transition, Geopolitics, Global Governance, International Political Economy

1. Bacchus, J. (2021). Carbon border adjustment mechanisms and international trade: Implications for climate governance. World Trade Review, 20(3), 345–368. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barnett, J., & Adger, W. N. (2007). Climate change, human security, and violent conflict. Political Geography, 26(6), 639–655. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Blackwill, R. D., & Harris, J. M. (2016). War by other means: Geoeconomics and statecraft. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Calliari, E., Roberts, J. T., & Ciplet, D. (2020). Climate finance, loss and damage, and equity in international climate politics. Global Environmental Politics, 20(4), 1–21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1999). Environment, scarcity, and violence. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton & Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Newell, P., & Paterson, M. (2010). Climate capitalism: Global warming and the transformation of the global economy. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Overland, I. (2019). The geopolitics of renewable energy: Debunking four emerging myths. Energy Research & Social Science, 49, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. C. (2007). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, North–South politics, and climate policy. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Scoones, I., Leach, M., & Newell, P. (2015). The politics of green transformations. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Young, O. R. (1994). International governance: Protecting the environment in a stateless society. Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Meckling, J., & Nahm, J. (2019). The new politics of industrial policy: Green industrial policy and the energy transition. Governance, 32(1), 9–25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Drone-Based Phenotyping and its Utilization in Crop Improvement: A Review
• An IoT-Enabled Smart Healthcare Monitoring System Using Machine Learning for Early Health Risk Prediction
• Strategic Integration of Artificial Intelligence for Achieving Operational Excellence in Container Freight Stations Using Evidence from Chennai, India
• Adoption of OTT platforms: Analyzing User Behavior through the UTAUT2 Model
• Customers’ Buying Behaviour in Relation to Online Food Delivery (Evidence from National Capital Region (NCR) of India)