More than 200 climate campaign groups will issue a joint call for reforms to the way United Nations (UN) climate talks are conducted, saying that the negotiations have “reached breaking point”.
The campaigners want decisions to be adopted by voting rather than requiring consensus among governments, as well as an end to what they call the “trade show” aspect of COP climate talks. They are also proposing measures to reduce polluting industries’ influence in a set of demands to be released at the Bonn mid-year talks on Monday afternoon.
UN expects climate finance roadmap to offer “clear next steps”
Lien Vandamme, a senior campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said in a statement: “For 30 years, the climate negotiations have systematically failed to deliver climate justice, undermined international law and allowed the fossil fuel industry to write the rules.”
Rachitaa Gupta, coordinator of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice, said that the UN’s climate system “must fundamentally reimagine itself”. “It must reform,” she added. “Anything short of this is continued complicity in the climate crisis.”
Consensus not voting
Unlike with many other UN conventions, decisions at the annual conference of the parties (COPs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) require consensus. While that is not clearly defined, it is interpreted to mean at least the vast majority of governments.
This stems from the first COP in 1995, when fossil fuel-exporting governments like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait blocked the adoption of voting rules. The rules for approving decisions have never been formally agreed, leaving governments to require consensus by default.
“The climate process must no longer be held hostage by the narrow interests of a few,” says the “United Call”, a document of a dozen pages outlining the reform proposals. “The absence of agreed procedures for decision-making allows big polluting countries to hold the negotiations hostage,” Vandamme added.
At COP29 last year, oil-dependent nations like Saudi Arabia blocked agreement on how to follow up on COP28’s commitment to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, while developed countries watered down ambition on a new climate finance goal, with some Global South governments expressing their disappointment even after it was adopted.
In 2011, Mexico and Papua New Guinea formally proposed an amendment to the climate convention for decisions to be taken if three-quarters of governments vote in favour. But that push was unsuccessful. Adopting this amendment would itself require a vote with a three-quarters majority.
End fossil fuel influence
The groups’ statement also calls for measures to “end undue influence” on COP delegates from fossil fuel companies and other big emitters of planet-warming gases. Research from the Kick Big Polluters Out campaign estimated that 1,800 fossil fuel lobbyists attended COP29 last year, mainly as part of trade associations but also as members of government delegations.
The joint call says that the countries hosting COPs should not enter into corporate partnerships, especially with companies that have a high-carbon footprint. Previous COP presidencies have used these partnerships to help cover the costs of hosting – for example, working with energy companies like Iberdrola, SSE and SOCAR.
Vandamme said it was important to host COPs in different regions but “COP hosts needing money to organise the conference cannot be an argument to allow corporate sponsorships”. She said governments should collectively help the host nation fund it, “for example through partnerships or contributing finance to support a COP”.
COP host integrity
The joint call points out that “climate talks have been hosted in countries with problematic human rights records and significant fossil fuel interests”. The last three COPs were in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Azerbaijan, which are all large producers of oil and gas. The campaign groups said they want future COP presidencies to “demonstrate tangible progress on climate action”.
The COP host country is chosen by government negotiators from each of the UN’s five regional groups: Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe and Others. The right to host rotates each year between the groups.
Next year is the turn of the “Western Europe and Others” group, and their negotiators are currently deciding between Australia and Turkiye. After that it will be Africa’s turn – with Nigeria bidding to host COP32 in Lagos – followed by Asia-Pacific, with India wanting to host that summit.
While the joint statement does not go into details of how to ensure that COP host nations demonstrate climate progress, Vandamme suggested that the UNFCCC could draw up a set of criteria for governments to use when they are choosing a COP country.
Governments will still decide on the location, Vandamme said. But, she added, “they should do so based on information provided by the candidate host country regarding their climate progress, as well as a commitment to respect, protect and uphold human rights, to avoid conflict of interests on the Presidency team and the COP organisation, and clarity on the logistics”.
Brazil: Let’s deliver on our old climate promises before making new ones
Recent talks in Bonn have been beset by visa issues, with many developing-country delegates struggling to get visas to enter Germany in time. “Year after year, discriminatory visa policies deny delegates access to timely visas, effectively silencing those on the frontlines of the climate crisis,” the statement said.
It calls for “a unified, simple, equitable, digital visa system with guaranteed approval within one week for all accredited participants to UNFCCC meetings”. Such systems were put in place for COP28 in Dubai and COP29 in Baku, it adds.
While individual campaign groups have called for similar reforms in the past, those organising Monday’s joint appeal said it is the first mass call for such a broad set of changes. Last year, prominent figures like former UN chief Ban Ki-moon signed a joint letter, organised by the Club of Rome network of thought leaders, calling for some of these reforms but leaving out the proposal to make decisions by voting.
The post Campaigners to issue mass call for reforms to rescue UN climate process appeared first on Climate Home News.
Campaigners to issue mass call for reforms to rescue UN climate process
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
The Positive Effects We’ve Had on Others Are Profound, Whether We Know It or Not
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits