Making efforts to keep the global temperature increase below 1.5°C is progressively becoming more challenging. A growing sense of urgency is emerging among the top United Nations advisers regarding this issue.
This urgency is evident following the release of an open letter this week calling for reforms to the COP climate negotiations process.
The situation has worsened due to the election of Donald Trump and heightened political divisions in the United States and beyond.
At the Climate talks, there are 197 parties, in addition to the European Union.
US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm addresses the media at the UNFCCC COP29 Climate Conference.
When nearly all nations are aligned and seeking to establish new emissions regulations or targets, the pressure intensifies on those few countries that resist.
Most of these nations will ultimately yield under such pressure.
We have frequently witnessed governments being coerced at COP meetings into endorsing climate-related targets they were initially reluctant to accept.
This scenario played out at COP28 in Dubai last year, where, after intense peer pressure, Saudi Arabia and its allies reluctantly consented to include fossil fuel phase-out in the official agreement.
However, the letter released this week highlights that the relentless pursuit of consensus, historically a cornerstone of climate negotiations, is now becoming a significant hindrance.
Increasing global political polarization has resulted in prolonged negotiation processes that distract from fulfilling existing commitments.
The letter argues that seeking consensus wastes precious time, especially when urgent climate action is essential to limit global warming.
Among the signatories of the open letter are notable figures such as Mary Robinson, Chair of the Elders; former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; former UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres; and others associated with the Group of Rome.
Every fraction of a degree in global warming is critical. The devastating impacts of climate change have been starkly visible in recent years.
Health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are all compromised as temperatures continue to rise.
The alarming aftermath of the extreme rainfall in Spain’s Valencia region.
The significant destruction caused by recent hurricanes, Milton and Helene, in the United States.
Europe continually shatters summer temperature records, and it is evident that heat-related deaths far exceed those from storms and flooding.
Moreover, rising sea levels pose an increasing threat to small island nations.
Even if we could halt all global greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, sea levels would continue to ascend for centuries due to the climate pollutants already in the atmosphere.
Health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic progress all suffer as global temperatures escalate.
Entire communities are at risk of being obliterated.
As temperatures rise, vector-borne diseases like malaria and dengue fever can spread more easily, as pathogens expand their range.
Flora and fauna will lose their climate-suited habitats; failure to migrate will lead to extinction.
The ramifications of failing to limit warming to 1.5°C are dire.
So, why squander precious time trying to gather everyone around a “talks table” to reach a consensus on new climate commitments when it is increasingly difficult to achieve agreement and the most significant player in these discussions, the United States, is poised to withdraw?
This is one of the central arguments presented by the expert group. They aim to convey a critical point that deserves our attention.
If Donald Trump, as he did previously and has indicated he would do again, withdraws the United States from climate discussions, it could encourage other countries to follow suit.
This is precisely what the President of Argentina did recently.
Activists stage a silent protest within the COP29 venue, demanding that wealthy nations provide climate financing to developing countries.
He instructed his country’s climate negotiators to exit the COP29 talks in Baku and return home.
President Javier Milei of Argentina is a prominent climate change skeptic, claiming that human-induced climate change is a fabricated narrative by socialists.
His spokesperson mentioned that Donald Trump has told Mr. Milei that he considers him his favorite president globally.
Interestingly, despite his skepticism about climate change, President Milei did send a delegation from Argentina to the climate talks in Baku.
They were prepared for active participation until Mr. Milei abruptly withdrew them and mandated their return after Trump’s election.
The authors of the letter may be older, but they are certainly not inactive; they anticipated these developments and had previously voiced their concerns.
In a prior open letter, issued 21 months ago, this same group forewarned the United Nations about the likely outcomes if it persisted in striving for a climate agreement among nearly 200 nations.
They cautioned that pursuing consensus would lead to delays that the global community could no longer afford.
On that occasion, as is now the case, they urged the UN to abandon the quest for consensus and focus instead on implementing existing climate commitments.
Latest Climate stories
In contrast to their previous letter, they waited three months following the conclusion of the COP27 meetings in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, before publishing their feedback.
This delay was to ensure that their comments would not undermine the COP27 discussions while they were ongoing.
However, this time, the situation is markedly different. They have strategically released this critical letter demanding reforms and asserting that the COP climate negotiations are inadequate during the peak of the ongoing talks in Baku, capturing global attention.
This effort aims to attract maximum visibility and set a new agenda.
The fundamental issues are not related to the organization or management of the negotiations (which have improved each year).
Instead, it is about the shifting political landscape. The world surrounding the COP has transformed.
We are witnessing increased polarization, regional conflicts, and a rise in populist sentiments in certain areas. Commitment to climate action is regressing in some regions.
Many would concur that the current COP structure is incapable of delivering the rapid and transformative changes now necessary to secure a stable climate for humanity.
