Christine Peringer’s experience at the United Nations climate conference in 2019 shed light on the inefficiencies and lack of sophistication in the methods used to run the meetings. As a professional facilitator and member of Mediators Beyond Borders International, Peringer was appalled by the haphazard process that delegates followed during the negotiations.
The typical process involved delegates delivering surface-level position statements in plenary sessions, breaking out into small groups to work on draft texts, and making quick decisions without proper translation or consideration. The final hours were chaotic, with delegates crowded around a single sheet of paper making last-minute revisions in ink. Peringer questioned how any meaningful agreements could be reached in such a disorganized manner.
These shortcomings at the annual COPs, or conference of the parties, have had significant consequences over the years. Despite the climate pledges made under the Paris Agreement, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise, with no country aligning their commitments with the agreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Critics of the COP conferences have labeled them as broken, mayhem, and a circus, calling for reforms to address the inefficiencies and lack of progress. One key issue that has been highlighted is the inability of participants to vote on contentious issues, as consensus is required for decision-making. This de facto veto power held by every country has been criticized for hindering climate progress and allowing for greenwashing.
As COP30 in Belém, Brazil, commences, the debate over voting rights for participants has resurfaced. Advocates like Mads Christensen of Greenpeace International argue that majority voting is essential for pushing ahead with science, justice, and progress in climate negotiations. However, the question remains about the feasibility and effectiveness of introducing a voting mechanism to resolve the treaty’s problems.
The UNFCCC’s exclusion of voting is unusual compared to other U.N. bodies and environmental treaties that allow for voting in certain circumstances. The resistance to adopting a voting mechanism stems from oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who blocked the provision for two-thirds majority voting in the treaty’s rules of procedure back in 1991. Their insistence on consensus-based decision-making has created a roadblock to progress in climate negotiations.
Formally adopting rules of procedure to allow for voting would require consensus, highlighting the complex dynamics at play in international climate negotiations. As the world grapples with the urgent need to address climate change, the debate over voting rights at COPs underscores the challenges and complexities of global climate governance. The adoption of rules of procedure within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has become the longest-standing unresolved issue on the Conference of the Parties (COP) agenda. Joanna Depledge, a research fellow at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Environment, Energy, and Natural Resource Governance, highlights the challenge of consensus decision-making within the UN climate negotiations.
Depledge notes that while consensus-building has its benefits, it can also lead to challenges, especially when countries with conflicting interests refuse to compromise. The Paris Agreement, despite its flaws, gained high levels of buy-in due to years of negotiations that led to a universally acceptable outcome.
However, the process of seeking consensus can sometimes hinder progress, as countries that oppose strong climate policies can exploit the consensus rule to block meaningful agreements. These countries, often with significant fossil fuel sectors, can maintain the status quo by refusing to compromise on crucial issues, thereby reducing the ambition of other nations.
Delegates at COP sessions have acknowledged this dynamic, with some describing the consensus approach as leading to the “lowest common denominator” outcomes that fail to address the urgent challenges of climate change effectively. Attempts to reform the UNFCCC decision-making processes, such as a proposal by Mexico and Papua New Guinea to amend the convention bypassing the need for consensus, have not gained enough support to move forward.
Depledge suggests that introducing voting rules at COP sessions, possibly through a supermajority or a double majority of developed and developing nations, could help overcome the challenges posed by consensus decision-making. While she acknowledges the difficulty of adopting new rules outright, she believes that a shift towards voting could enhance the effectiveness of global climate action.
In conclusion, the ongoing debate over the adoption of rules of procedure reflects the larger struggle within the UNFCCC to balance the benefits of consensus with the need for decisive action on climate change. As countries continue to grapple with this issue, finding a way to incorporate more efficient decision-making mechanisms may be crucial in accelerating progress towards a sustainable future. A lack of voting “is not the number one reason why we are not achieving as much as we could be” in climate negotiations, according to experts. The issue of voting is unlikely to be a major topic at the upcoming COP30 in Belém, as geopolitical issues such as President Trump’s actions and conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine take precedence. However, questions remain about the future of international climate diplomacy.
Experts believe that past climate negotiations might have been different if negotiators had the ability to vote. Stronger language around a “phaseout” of fossil fuels, stricter requirements for wealthy countries to support poorer ones affected by climate change, and stronger commitments to emissions reductions could have been possible. Moving forward, future meetings like COP30 could lead to stronger collective commitments, even if they are not legally binding.
Instead of introducing voting rules, some suggest reinterpreting consensus to mean that each country can “live with” a decision, rather than requiring unanimous agreement. This shift could prevent countries from blocking consensus unless they believe the decision is detrimental to the process or their values.
In an academic paper, it was suggested that COP facilitators play a more active role in determining when consensus is reached and asking holdout countries to “stand aside” for the greater good. While this tactic has been used before, it requires a skilled facilitator and may not be effective with a larger group of countries blocking consensus.
Moving away from the consensus decision-making model could risk alienating countries from the UNFCCC or Paris Agreement. However, some believe the risks are worth taking to push for more ambitious climate action. Smaller coalitions of countries could work together to phase out fossil fuels and use trade policy to influence nations that refuse to cooperate.
The Ottawa Treaty, which banned landmines, serves as an example of successful treaty negotiation outside of the U.N. framework. While there are challenges to moving away from consensus decision-making, some believe it may be necessary to avoid stalling progress in global climate negotiations.
Ultimately, the consequences of delays in climate action are measured in lives, livelihoods, and the destruction of countries. Finding innovative ways to push for stronger commitments and actions on climate change is crucial for the future of our planet. The rise of social media has completely transformed the way we communicate, share information, and connect with others. From Facebook to Instagram to Twitter, these platforms have become an integral part of our daily lives, shaping the way we interact with the world around us.
One of the most significant impacts of social media is its ability to amplify voices and bring attention to important issues. With just a few clicks, users can share news articles, videos, and personal stories with a global audience, sparking conversations and raising awareness about topics that may have previously gone unnoticed.
For example, the #MeToo movement gained momentum on social media, with survivors of sexual harassment and assault sharing their stories and experiences. This led to a wave of accountability for powerful individuals in various industries and shed light on the prevalence of these issues in society.
Social media has also played a crucial role in political movements and activism. During the Arab Spring, platforms like Twitter and Facebook were used to organize protests and spread information about government crackdowns. More recently, social media has been instrumental in raising awareness about climate change, gun violence, and racial injustice, mobilizing people to take action and demand change.
Furthermore, social media has revolutionized the way businesses market their products and services. Companies can now reach a global audience with targeted advertising campaigns, influencer partnerships, and engaging content that resonates with consumers. Social media has also leveled the playing field for small businesses, allowing them to compete with larger corporations and reach new customers without a substantial marketing budget.
However, with great power comes great responsibility, and social media also has its drawbacks. The spread of misinformation, cyberbullying, and privacy concerns are just a few of the issues that have arisen as a result of the rapid growth of these platforms. Companies and policymakers are now grappling with how to regulate social media and protect users from harmful content and data breaches.
As we continue to navigate the ever-evolving landscape of social media, it is essential to approach these platforms with a critical eye and use them responsibly. By leveraging the power of social media for good, we can create positive change, amplify marginalized voices, and build a more connected and informed society.
