The COP30 global climate summit in Brazil may have been the last opportunity for the nations of the world to reach an agreement that limits planetary warming below catastrophic (>1.5C/3F) levels. By that criterion alone, the now-completed COP30 conference was an abject failure, despite whatever other progress might be claimed. In my recent book “Science Under Siege” with public health scientist Peter Hotez, we discuss the five main forces that threaten the planet. One of them is billionaire plutocrats like Bill Gates, who sidetracked the conversation going into COP30 by dismissing the urgency of climate mitigation. But an even greater threat is bad actor petrostates like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and now—under current Republican rule—the United States. They have banded together to weaponize the “consensus” rule machinery of the UNFCCC, hijacking the negotiations and blocking any meaningful commitment or timeline for phasing out fossil fuels. Both the patience of most serious climate advocates—and the clock—are quickly now running out.
As if it wasn’t clear already, fundamental changes must now be made in the UNFCCC rules. A small number of rogue nations cannot be allowed to block progress for the rest of the world. One suggestion has been a rule change requiring a three-fourths (75%) rather than a “consensus” of all countries for reaching an agreement. The cruel irony here, however, is that such a rule change would also require “consensus” among participating nations.
There’s an easier solution however. It simply involves looking up the word “consensus” in the dictionary. Consensus is not “unanimity”, though it has been convenient for the few major holdouts to insist otherwise. “Consensus” is typically defined e.g. as “a generally accepted decision among a group of people”. By such a definition, three-fourths support seems more than adequate to constitute “consensus” and, thereby, pass an agreement, under current rules, that meets the moment and commits to a rapid phaseout of planet-warming fossil carbon emissions.
The handful of stragglers who refuse to sign on could be subject to economic sanctions (e.g. border adjustments) by countries that do, the details of which would have to be worked out. Such measures seems necessary, as the prior enforcement mechanism of “name and shame” simply doesn’t work with parties that have no shame. I’m looking at you Saudi Arabia, Russia (and sadly yes, at least right now, the U.S. too).
If this–or an equivalent–changes in posture is not adopted at the COP31 summit next year in Turkey, then the U.N. might have to consider a more drastic overhaul of the entire COP summit framework which, according to some climate policy leaders, is sadly “no longer fit for purpose”.
We–and the planet–cannot afford another Bad COP.
