The term “just transition” has become a buzzword at international climate forums—a neatly packaged promise designed to reassure us that, as we move away from fossil fuels, no one will be left behind. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: while global leaders deliver lofty speeches about equitable climate futures at podiums from Glasgow to Dubai, the reality on the ground is far less inspiring.

Consider Durham County in the UK, where just last week the council voted to abandon its climate emergency declaration, pointing to budget pressures and economic priorities. Durham isn’t an isolated case; councils like West Northamptonshire are also dropping their sustainability pledges, treating climate action as if it’s a nice-to-have rather than a necessity. These reversals aren’t one-off events—they’re signs of a broader trend, where immediate economic fears become convenient excuses to walk back climate commitments.

This problem extends far beyond the UK. In the United States, states like Texas celebrate renewable energy achievements while simultaneously undercutting climate policy through local politics. Australia, still recovering from the devastating floods in Tasmania, sees state commitments constantly challenged by powerful mining and fossil fuel interests. Even Brazil, set to host COP30, is planning road construction through critical rainforests, exposing the deep divide between global rhetoric and local environmental responsibility.

What makes these political retreats particularly frustrating is their timing. We are experiencing firsthand the consequences of climate breakdown—historic flooding, unprecedented wildfires, relentless heatwaves. The United Nations recently published an urgent call for a “just transition,” highlighting that equitable climate action is both morally essential and economically wise. Yet local politicians continue to frame sustainability as something they can discard when it’s politically inconvenient.

At the heart of this global retreat is a widespread misunderstanding: that sustainability is too costly, impractical, or politically risky. I have written about this a lot. This narrative is simply political cowardice. Sustainability isn’t an optional extra; it’s the bare minimum required to ensure a livable future. Ironically, the very communities whose economic concerns are used to justify abandoning climate action will suffer most from climate-related disasters—disasters that pay no attention to political cycles or budgetary constraints.

This shortsightedness also undermines the very idea of a “just transition.” Equity and justice demand consistent policies that protect vulnerable communities—not empty declarations abandoned at the first sign of financial pressure. Politicians readily invoke economic hardship to justify rolling back commitments, yet ignore the far greater economic devastation climate-related events will impose.

We can’t allow “just transition” to become another empty promise, discarded whenever convenient. Real sustainability demands bold and determined leadership—leaders who stand firm even when facing populist resistance or economic challenges. Anything less is irresponsible.

The world doesn’t need another round of grand speeches; it needs tangible local actions aligned with global promises. Durham, Texas, Australia, Brazil—these examples aren’t isolated; they represent a widespread failure to deliver on commitments. Each of us must now decide: will we hold local leaders accountable, or allow “just transition” to fade into yet another unfulfilled promise on the path to climate disaster?