Perception versus practice: Using neoclassical realism to analyse states’ ‘dual perceptions’ of fossil fuel, and the dilemma of climate change mitigation in a world of uncertainty

This study examines and evaluates states’ ‘dual perception’ of fossil fuels as both strategic assets and environmental liabilities among the world’s top carbon emitters (China, the United States, India, and Russia). By applying neoclassical realism, it bridges the gap between international structural pressures and domestic political variables to explain why states continue to heavily rely on fossil fuels despite ambitious climate pledges, underscoring the complex intersection of energy, politics, and environmental concerns. Empirically, we used a mixed-methods approach to test the hypotheses: qualitative thematic content analysis of leaders’ speeches (coded in NVivo) and quantitative indicators drawn from International Energy Agency and Climate Action Tracker. We conclude that countries’ dual perception of fossil fuels is a rational but constrained response to domestic political variables (revenue, employment, economic sustenance, and energy security) and international structural pressures (green competition, meeting Paris Accord commitments, and moral imperatives), among others. This study contributes to the international relations literature by introducing a non-traditional security variable like climate change into the neoclassical realist discourse.