When Christine Peringer first attended a United Nations climate conference in 2019, she found it frustrating. A professional facilitator with Mediators Beyond Borders International, she noticed the meetings lacked clarity and organization. Delegates would gather for a plenary session, briefly share their views, then break into smaller groups. The process often felt chaotic, with people talking over each other and struggling with translations. Peringer wondered how any progress could be made in such a disorderly environment.
This experience isn’t unique. The U.N. climate negotiations, known as COPs (conference of the parties), have been happening for over three decades. Yet, greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 40% since the early ’90s, contrary to pledges made in the Paris Agreement. Currently, no country’s climate vow aligns with the target of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Instead, research indicates that existing pledges could lead to a rise of 3.1 degrees Celsius.
Many criticize the COPs for being broken or disorganized. Calls for reform have surfaced, ranging from banning fossil fuel lobbyists to minimizing greenwashing, but one crucial issue persists: voting. Currently, countries must reach a consensus on contentious topics, which gives each member a veto over proposals. Environmentalists view this as a significant obstacle to meaningful progress in climate action.
With COP30 underway in Belém, Brazil, the debate continues: Should negotiators be able to vote? Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International’s director, insists that the lack of voting is central to the paralysis. “We need to move forward with science and justice,” he argues. Christiana Figueres, an architect of the Paris Agreement, echoed this sentiment, advocating for majority voting.
The inability to vote is unusual within the U.N. system. Most U.N. bodies permit voting under certain conditions, a practice also seen in other environmental agreements. The UNFCCC, however, has operated under these consensus rules since its inception, primarily due to opposition from oil-producing nations.
Experts like Joanna Depledge from the University of Cambridge point out that the voting issue has lingered for decades, forming an unresolved aspect of the COP agenda. While consensus fosters inclusivity, it can also lead to weaker outcomes, as countries resistant to significant change benefit from a status quo where they can stall negotiations.
In a recent discussion, Peringer suggested that instead of requiring unanimous agreement, consensus could simply mean that countries can live with a decision. This interpretation might help break deadlocks, with facilitators playing a more active role in determining when consensus has been achieved.
Without a voting mechanism, COPs may continue to yield diluted agreements. Some experts propose that smaller coalitions of countries could pursue ambitious climate goals independently, moving beyond consensus-driven approaches that have stalled decisive action.
The risks of leaving behind the consensus model are evident: countries might feel sidelined and choose to disengage from the processes altogether. However, with the stakes this high, many believe it may be worth considering alternative measures, especially when the well-being of communities and ecosystems depends on swift, effective action.
As debates unfold at COP30, one thing is clear: the current method needs rethinking. Effective climate strategies require a shift from sterile consensus toward more decisive, inclusive decision-making.
For further details on the discussions and challenges at COP30, you may visit Grist.
