G7 Failure on Climate, War, and Poverty

The Group of Seven (G7) Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, concluded on June 18, 2025, with a glaring spotlight on its inability to address the interconnected crises of war, poverty, and climate change. As reported by Jessica Corbett and other sources, the summit produced statements on issues like artificial intelligence and wildfires but failed to deliver meaningful action on the pressing global challenges of climate change, conflict, and inequality. This failure, coupled with alarming new research on ocean acidification, agricultural decline, and fossil fuel projects like Australia’s North West Shelf, paints a dire picture of the world’s trajectory.

The 2025 G7 Summit, attended by leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, was marked by a notable absence of leadership on critical global issues. Oxfam’s scathing critique described the summit as “morally indefensible” for its failure to address war, poverty, and climate change effectively. The group highlighted the G7’s retreat from responsibility, noting a planned 28% reduction in aid by 2026, which threatens millions already grappling with hunger, poverty, and climate impacts. Climate campaigners, including Greenpeace and 350.org, echoed this sentiment, criticizing the G7 for sidestepping the climate crisis, particularly under the shadow of U.S. President Donald Trump’s early exit and his administration’s climate denialism.

The G7’s inability to confront the climate emergency is particularly alarming given the mounting evidence of environmental collapse. For instance, a study published in Global Change Biology revealed that ocean acidification has already crossed a critical “planetary boundary,” with calcium carbonate levels—a key indicator of marine ecosystem health—dropping to 17% of pre-industrial levels by 2020. This acidification threatens marine life, from sea butterflies in polar regions to coastal shellfish, with cascading effects on global food chains and coastal economies. Similarly, the approval of Australia’s North West Shelf gas project extension, projected to emit 87.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually until 2070, underscores the ongoing prioritization of fossil fuel interests over climate action. Meanwhile, agricultural studies, such as one published in Nature, predict significant declines in staple crop production, particularly in high-income regions like the U.S. Midwest and Canada’s Prairies, due to climate-induced heat and drought.

These developments highlight a broader failure of global leadership. The G7, representing some of the world’s wealthiest and most polluting nations, missed a critical opportunity to lead on climate justice, hold fossil fuel industries accountable, and support vulnerable populations. Instead, their inaction risks exacerbating global instability, as climate change amplifies resource scarcity, food insecurity, and geopolitical tensions.

Based on current trends and the G7’s failure to act decisively, the climate in 2030 is likely to be significantly more hostile than today. The United Nations projects global warming of up to 2.9°C by 2100 under a moderate emissions scenario, and by 2030, we could be well on track toward this trajectory, with global temperatures potentially rising by 1.8–2°C above pre-industrial levels. This warming will intensify extreme weather events, including more frequent and severe droughts, floods, and heatwaves, particularly in productive agricultural regions like the U.S. Midwest and Canada’s Prairies. The Nature study projects that by 2100, wheat and corn yields in these regions could decline by 30–40%, but by 2030, losses of 10–20% are plausible, even with adaptation measures like improved crop varieties and irrigation.

Ocean acidification will likely worsen, with deeper waters and high-latitude regions like the polar seas facing the most severe impacts. By 2030, up to 70% of subsurface waters could cross the critical 20% calcium carbonate threshold, further decimating marine ecosystems. Coral reefs, already down 40% in tropical regions, may face near-total collapse in some areas, disrupting fisheries that millions depend on. Coastal economies, particularly in developing nations, will face mounting losses as shellfish habitats degrade further.

Wildfires, already a growing threat in countries like Canada, will become more frequent and intense. The G7’s failure to link wildfire management to climate action, as noted by Greenpeace’s Keith Stewart, suggests that by 2030, fire-prone regions will face escalating economic and ecological costs. Meanwhile, fossil fuel projects like the North West Shelf will continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, locking in emissions for decades and undermining any near-term mitigation efforts.

These climate impacts will not be evenly distributed. Wealthier nations like the U.S. and Canada may have more resources to adapt, but their agricultural heartlands will face significant disruptions. Poorer nations, already stretched by resource constraints, will bear disproportionate burdens, with food insecurity and climate-induced migration driving social and political instability.

Civilization’s ability to cope with these challenges by 2030 will depend on the interplay of adaptation, innovation, and governance. In wealthier nations, adaptation strategies will likely intensify. In Canada, for example, farmers are already adopting drought-resistant wheat varieties and shifting to crops like soybeans and corn in warmer northern regions. The Nature study suggests that such adaptations could offset about one-third of global agricultural losses, but the costs—estimated at $1 million per new crop variety—will strain public and private budgets. In the U.S., investments in infrastructure like water reservoirs and precision agriculture may mitigate some losses, but the scale of disruption will likely outpace these efforts, leading to higher food prices and economic strain.

Globally, food insecurity will worsen, particularly in developing nations. The projected 13% reduction in daily caloric intake per person under a 3°C warming scenario translates to millions facing hunger, especially in regions dependent on imports from major producers. Rising food prices will exacerbate inequality, potentially sparking social unrest and mass migration. Coastal communities, hit hard by collapsing fisheries, may face economic collapse, further fueling displacement.

Technological innovation offers some hope. Advances in renewable energy, such as low-cost wind and solar, could accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, though the G7’s reluctance to challenge fossil fuel interests suggests this shift will be too slow to avert significant warming by 2030. Similarly, breakthroughs in drought-resistant crops and sustainable farming practices could bolster food security, but scaling these solutions requires political will and investment—both lacking at the G7.

Totalitarianism could emerge as a response to crisis-driven instability. By 2030, the U.S. may face significant climate-related challenges: declining agricultural yields, rising food prices, and increased extreme weather events. These stressors could exacerbate social divisions, particularly if economic inequality worsens and public trust in institutions erodes further.

Several factors could push the U.S. toward authoritarianism. First, resource scarcity—particularly food and water—could lead to public unrest, prompting governments to adopt heavy-handed measures to maintain order. Historical examples, such as the U.S. response to post-9/11 security fears, suggest that crises can justify expanded surveillance and control. Second, the Nature study’s finding that wealthier nations like the U.S. will face significant agricultural losses could strain the economy, fueling populist narratives that blame elites or minorities, as seen in recent political rhetoric. A leader like Trump, whose administration was criticized for climate denialism at the G7, could exploit such unrest to consolidate power, especially if public frustration with ineffective governance grows.

However, countervailing forces exist. The U.S. has a strong democratic tradition, with checks and balances that have historically resisted authoritarianism. Civil society, including climate advocacy groups like 350.org, could mobilize to demand accountability and push for equitable solutions like climate finance and debt cancellation for vulnerable nations. Technological innovation, particularly in renewable energy and agriculture, could alleviate some resource pressures, reducing the impetus for draconian measures.

The likelihood of totalitarianism depends on political leadership and public response. A polarized electorate and weakened institutions could enable authoritarian tendencies, especially if a crisis is framed as requiring strong, centralized action. Conversely, robust civic engagement and international cooperation could steer the U.S. toward collaborative, democratic solutions. The G7’s failure to model such cooperation does not bode well, but grassroots movements and state-level climate initiatives could fill the leadership void.

The G7’s failure to address climate change, war, and poverty in 2025 reflects a broader crisis of global leadership, with profound implications for the next five years. By 2030, the world faces a climate increasingly defined by extreme weather, collapsing marine ecosystems, and declining food production. Wealthier nations like the U.S. and Canada will grapple with agricultural losses and economic strain, while poorer nations face acute food insecurity and displacement. Civilization’s ability to cope will hinge on adaptation and innovation, but the scale of the challenge demands urgent, coordinated action—precisely what the G7 failed to deliver.

The risk of totalitarianism in the U.S. is real but not inevitable. Climate and resource stressors could fuel authoritarian impulses, particularly if economic inequality and public distrust intensify. However, democratic resilience, technological advances, and grassroots activism offer a path toward equitable solutions. The next five years will be a critical test of whether societies can reject the allure of centralized control and embrace collective, sustainable action to avert further catastrophe.