After two weeks of climate negotiations riven by arguments over finance and science, the UN climate chief expressed disappointment and denounced governments for “cherry-picking” commitments they have already made and waiting for others to move first.

In their final hours on Thursday evening, the talks tried – and failed – to reach a deal that would have balanced developing countries’ demands for reassurance on finance to help them adapt to climate impacts with richer nations’ desire to move forward with work on speeding up emissions reductions in line with science.

Simon Stiell, the head of the UN climate body, released a statement as the Bonn talks wound up, saying that “in some negotiating rooms, we’ve heard a familiar tendency towards you-first-ism – groups refusing to deliver commitments or allow the process to move forward unless others go first”.  

“This is a recipe for gridlock when we need all negotiating tracks to be moving in the fast lane,” he added.

Gridlock is where the talks ended, with countries unable to agree conclusions on at least three major areas of climate action, including adaptation and mitigation, invoking “Rule 16”. That means they will be taken up again at COP31 in Türkiye in November.

Bonn Bulletin: Finance row threatens to scupper work on adaptation goal

On the emissions reduction (mitigation) work programme, pushback – primarily from fossil-fuel producing nations – has prevented any meaningful progress since its creation at COP27, as countries have been unable to come up with a united vision for its scope and purpose.

Despite many countries expressing disappointment at the end of Bonn, China argued that some common ground had been found that could serve as positive elements to build on at COP31, including that “no one is against mitigation implementation and ambition”.

Adaptation “salt in our wounds”

Small island states and developing nations spoke bitterly of the lack of progress on the global goal on adaptation, which had been expected to launch technical work on putting into practice indicators agreed at COP30 in Brazil, and said it had destroyed trust between countries.

Fiji’s delegate described the need to adapt to evolving climate risk as a “daily burden”, which he said is a question of water and food security and, in some cases, forcing people to face relocation on the Pacific islands.

“Some of us will now travel more than 30 hours home to report that one of the most fundamental issues we sought progress on here for vulnerable countries has stalled at a time when we need guidance and outcomes the most. In light of overshoot [of 1.5C of warming] and attacks on the science, this is simply further salt in our wounds,” he told the closing plenary as the clock ticked towards midnight local time.

On Wednesday, a coalition of European and climate-vulnerable developing countries accused fossil fuel interests and the “usual suspects” of mounting ”coordinated attacks” on science, as arguments erupted over the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C warming limit and its overshoot and when the next UN climate science reports should be published.

Science ‘under attack’ from fossil fuel interests at UN climate talks

Stiell urged the Turkish and Australian COP31 co-presidencies to get ministers working “as soon as possible” on the “thorniest issues” in the UN climate process so that negotiations can move into the “fast lane”. The presidencies are under pressure to appoint pairs of ministers to resolve these issues earlier than usual, so that they are well-briefed and know their counterparts ahead of COP31.

Alden Meyer, senior associate for climate diplomacy and geopolitics with E3G, lamented the “limited progress in most of the negotiating rooms” over the past fortnight. “As people across the world suffer the twin crises of mounting climate impacts as well as the sharply higher energy and food prices resulting from the war in the… Gulf, there was no sense of urgency at the Bonn climate talks.”

Electrification bright spot

Meyer and others observers did, however, welcome a new goal on electrification proposed by COP31 host Turkiye outside of the formal talks under the Global Climate Action Agenda, which also brings in the private sector and cities.

The electrification target would strive to ramp up the share of final energy consumption provided by electricity to 35% by 2035 from about 20% today by accelerating the switch to technologies such as heat pumps, electric vehicles (EVs) and electric cookers.

COP31 leaders unveil global targets, with spotlight on electrification

Nonetheless, some analysts said such goals lack significance without a global plan to transition away from fossil fuels. Brazil is now working on one, with inputs from countries and civil society, but it is unclear how this will be incorporated into the UN climate process, if at all.

Jasper Inventor, deputy programme director at Greenpeace International, said the stalled talks around climate finance for developing countries and a repeated deadlock on mitigation “took some of the shine off the emergence of a coalition of countries supporting a transition away from fossil fuels at a time where the climate and energy crisis is set to be supercharged” by an emerging El Niño pattern.

Bonn paves way for new just transition mechanism

One key topic that advanced more calmly at the Bonn talks and even achieved some promising consensus was just transition – how to achieve a green economic and social shift that is fair from the global to the local level. Countries approved the terms of reference under which the just transition work programme (JTWP), which began in 2023, will be reviewed.

And following up on a COP30 decision to develop a mechanism to guide and enable support for just transition initiatives, which was hailed by civil society as a big win, countries in Bonn provided a first set of options on its structure and other elements of how it will operate, with a view to it being launched at COP31.

Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation

Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on just transition at Climate Action Network International, which represents hundreds of green groups, noted that “it will require a bit of work between now and COP31 to have an agreement”. Informal discussions could take place, for example, during Regional Climate Week in Baku in October, or at the invitation of the COP31 presidency in Australia, she added.

Key considerations for the new mechanism are to include ways to provide the resources for just transition, to provide technical support, and include communities and workers, she said.

“Civil society is going to continue working. This is the legitimate space to bring the fight for just transition,” she told journalists in Bonn on Thursday.

The post Bonn climate talks end in “gridlock” on adaptation and emissions-cutting appeared first on Climate Home News.

Bonn climate talks end in “gridlock” on adaptation and emissions-cutting

By Paul Watkinson, Stefan Ruchti-Crowley, Anju Sharma, Ovais Sarmad and Benito Müller.

In the corridors of the World Conference Centre in Bonn, where the June Climate Meetings (SB64) will conclude on Thursday, the need for change is palpable.

Delegates are grappling once again with overcrowded agendas, growing demands on limited negotiating time, external geopolitical pressures that reverberate internally to test the limits of a consensus-based process, and concerns over its future financial sustainability.

Bonn Bulletin: Finance row threatens to scupper work on adaptation goal

There is growing frustration with a process that consumes vast amounts of time to produce outcomes that are often too incremental to match the accelerating reality of the climate crisis.

The climate regime has delivered. But it is in danger of not delivering enough.

More effective multilateralism

There is no denying the successes of the UN climate process. Over three decades, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement established a universal framework for climate action, created transparency and accountability mechanisms, and sent powerful signals to governments, businesses and investors.

Thanks in large part to this framework, the world is no longer on a trajectory of more than 4°C of warming, clean technology costs have fallen dramatically, and participation in the global climate effort remains nearly universal.

Yet, global temperatures continue to break records. Climate impacts are intensifying across every region. The world remains far off track to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. As warming approaches – and may exceed – 1.5°C, every additional fraction of a degree brings greater losses of lives, livelihoods and ecosystems, with the greatest burdens falling on the most vulnerable countries and communities.

We remain convinced that the answer to the climate crisis is not less multilateralism, but more effective multilateralism.

The hard truth is that the UNFCCC remains largely organised around the logic of treaty-making, while the central challenge of climate action has shifted to implementation. A process designed to negotiate agreements and deliver decision text as the outcome is now required to support implementation on the ground—and it is struggling.

There is a structural mismatch between what the climate process was designed to do, and what it needs to do now.

Consultations on reforms

Discussions on the urgency of reform are widespread and no longer confined to the margins. Formally, the Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM) process is exploring ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the process.

The UNFCCC Executive Secretary has also convened a High-Level Informal Consultative Roundtable for strategic reflection on how to strengthen the complementarity between the intergovernmental process and action in the real economy.

Defending multilateralism today requires adapting it.

The good news is that meaningful reform does not require reopening treaties, renegotiating the Paris Agreement, or indeed even resolving long-standing differences on the Rules of Procedure to change the consensus rule. Stefan Ruchti-Crowley and Paul Watkinson’s recent paper for ecbi (European Capacity Building Initiative), Quo Vadis COP? Reforming UNFCCC Sessions to Improve Negotiations and Support Implementation, outlines a practical toolbox of four reforms that can be pursued within the existing institutional framework.

First, the process must improve its agendas.

The formal process is burdened by crowded agendas and overlapping workstreams. Consolidating agenda items under broader thematic pillars (such as mitigation, adaptation, finance and transparency); developing good practices for agenda adoption; removing legacy “ghost” items; and concluding outstanding business on the Kyoto Protocol will create more space for substantive discussions and implementation.

Second, the process must organise its work more strategically.

The climate process currently attempts to address nearly every issue at every session. A more strategic approach would use thematic multi-year programmes of work; better align review cycles and timelines; improve coherence across the many bodies and processes that have accumulated over time, often to the extent that even insiders have lost oversight; and also make better use of inter-sessional and pre-sessional meetings.

Third, the process must focus more deliberately on implementation.

Critically, not every challenge requires a negotiated outcome. Negotiations should focus on issues that genuinely require collective decision-making. Other discussions should prioritise learning, cooperation and practical problem-solving.

Existing formats such as Talanoa Dialogues, roundtables and other facilitative approaches should be expanded. Likewise, the Enhanced Transparency Framework should become a stronger mechanism for mutual learning and accountability rather than a largely procedural reporting and “box-ticking” exercise.

Fourth, the process must make structural changes and broaden participation.

National delegations should include a broader range of practitioners and policymakers, including a Head of Implementation. The process should strengthen engagement with sectoral ministers, investors, technology providers, scientists, local authorities and non-Party stakeholders.

Stronger links are necessary between science policy and implementation, and with international institutions that shape the enabling conditions for climate action, particularly finance and development. Platforms to address systemic barriers along with AI-enabled learning by doing will equally support strengthened action.

Delivering commitments with limited resources

The case for reform is becoming even stronger as financial pressures intensify.

Improving efficiency is not simply desirable; it has become unavoidable. The UNFCCC faces growing budgetary constraints arising from delayed contributions, uncertainty surrounding major donors, and broader reductions across the UN system.

A process that is better organised, more implementation-focused and less encumbered by procedural overload will be far better equipped to navigate a future of tighter resources.

Leadership will be crucial.

Panama environment minister backs calls for reform of UN climate process

COP presidencies have an important role to play, as do the Chairs of the Subsidiary Bodies. The UNFCCC Executive Secretary and Secretariat must take a bold approach to work in coordination with the COP Bureau to implement urgent changes.

Careful diplomacy will, of course, be essential. Parties must be reassured that reform is intended to strengthen the effectiveness of the regime, not weaken its governance. The objective is not to replace mandates, but to ensure that mandates can be fulfilled more effectively. It is to ensure that negotiation is used where negotiation is needed, while other forms of cooperation are used where they can deliver better results.

The UNFCCC remains the cornerstone of international climate cooperation. No other forum combines its legitimacy, universality and legal authority. But the multilateral climate process must evolve from a system primarily designed to negotiate commitments into one that is equally capable of supporting their delivery.

The post The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation appeared first on Climate Home News.

The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation

On quiet streets across the Californian city of Monterey Park, green-and-white “YES on Measure NDC” signs stood on front-yard lawns as volunteers walked door-to-door, drumming up support among residents to vote in favor of a ban on new data centers in their area.

They clarified the ballot wording in English, Spanish and Chinese, while distributing multilingual flyers warning about the rise in electricity demand, industrial infrastructure and environmental impacts associated with AI-related data center development.

Less than a month later, on June 2, Monterey Park voters overwhelmingly approved the ban in the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles, with 86.4% voting in favor and 13.6% opposed, according to county election results.

Social opposition to data centers is on the rise, especially in the US, as artificial intelligence (AI) and the technology hubs needed to support it stoke competition for electricity, water and land in communities where they are based. Industry advocates say data centers bring economic benefits and do not always result in higher power prices for households.

The result in Monterey Park made it the first city in the United States to enact a citywide prohibition on data centers through a voter-approved ballot measure.

“This week our city has been celebrating the landslide results from Measure NDC,” Monterey Park Mayor Elizabeth Yang said in a phone interview.

On social media, Yang described the city’s response as the result of sustained resident organizing and civic engagement. “We want to fulfill our duty of listening to residents,” Yang told Climate Home News.

A community campaign takes shape

The vote came after months of public testimony, neighborhood outreach and organizing surrounding a proposed data center project on Saturn Street in Monterey Park. Here, developers planned to replace an existing commercial office building with a nearly 50-megawatt data center intended to serve growing demand for AI computing.

Supporters of Measure NDC (Measure No Data Centers) argued that keeping this, and other such centers, out of their community would help protect air quality, drinking water resources, public health and local infrastructure.

According to CoStar News, a real estate information platform, the backers of the Saturn Street project – Digico Infrastructure REIT and HMC Capital’s StratCap – had already withdrawn their planning application on April 3 amid growing local opposition and regulatory uncertainty, including the city’s decision to place a data center ban before voters.

Subsequently, on April 20, the Monterey Park City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting all data centers within the city limits.

Explainer: Will AI data centres make or break the energy transition?

Company representatives later said they would explore future “productive land uses … supported by the broader community”. Potential alternatives discussed publicly have included housing, although no formal proposal has been submitted.

Reuters reported in May that DigiCo Infrastructure, an Australian company, was exploring “monetisation options” for its two Los Angeles sites after rowing back on the Monterey Park proposal. DigiCo is also selling its Chicago data center for $750 million to pay down debt and fund the development of another site in Sydney.

DigiCo and HMC Capital did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

Potential local benefits of data centers

Industry lobby groups argue that data centers can provide economic benefits to host communities. According to the US-based Data Center Coalition, which represents major operators and developers, data centers generate tax revenue, support construction and technical jobs, and provide infrastructure needed for cloud computing, scientific research and AI development.

The industry has also challenged claims that data centers necessarily raise electricity costs for households. A recent report by energy consulting firm Energy + Environmental Economics (E3), commissioned by the coalition, found no historical evidence that data centers had driven up residential electricity rates under existing utility pricing structures. It argued that factors including inflation, grid modernization costs, natural gas price volatility and investments in wildfire resilience have played a bigger role in rising electricity bills.

According to E3, large users can, under certain regulatory frameworks, reduce prices for other customers by contributing more revenue to utilities than they cost to serve. In a previous analysis of Amazon data centers, the consultancy found that payments from the facilities exceeded the incremental costs incurred by utilities. The report also noted that regulators across the US have increasingly adopted specialized pricing structures as data center demand has expanded.

Hefty carbon, water and land footprints

The concerns raised in Monterey Park mirror debates over the environmental and infrastructure demands of AI being heard in many countries around the world, from Europe to North America and Asia.

This month, a UN report estimated that the data centers required for AI globally could consume 945 terawatt-hours of electricity annually by 2030 – roughly twice France’s 2025 power consumption.

This, it calculated, would have a carbon footprint needing some 6.7 billion trees grown over 10 years to offset, a water footprint equal to the annual domestic needs of 1.3 billion people in Sub-Saharan Africa, and a land footprint of more than 14,500 square kilometers, roughly twice the Jakarta metropolitan area. 

In a 2026 report, Key Questions on Energy and AI, the International Energy Agency (IEA) found that electricity consumption from AI-focused data centers grew by approximately 50% in 2025 alone.

It warned that “social acceptability is also a growing issue, as communities push back against data center projects”, citing concerns about environmental sustainability, electricity affordability, infrastructure strain and democratic participation in land-use decisions.

Global data center electricity consumption by sensitivity case, 2020-2035

AI-focused facilities consume substantially more electricity than traditional data centers and often require extensive supporting infrastructure, including cooling systems, industrial electrical equipment, backup generators running on diesel and large-scale energy storage systems.

The IEA also noted that operators are increasingly exploring onsite natural gas generation and battery infrastructure to maintain electrical reliability as AI workloads intensify.

Local concern over industrial infrastructure

Samuel Brown Vazquez, an East San Gabriel Valley community organizer, said doubts about the proposed data center in Monterey Park were informed by broader debates over industrial development in the area.

Brown cited community opposition to proposals that could bring battery energy storage facilities – and potentially data centers – to the former Puente Hills Mall site  in the City of Industry, where residents have raised concerns about pollution, fire risks, and the impacts of new industrial infrastructure on nearby residential neighborhoods and schools.

Many viewed the campaign as part of a larger conversation about how communities should respond to the rapid expansion of AI-related infrastructure across Southern California.

Power-hungry AI data centres seen driving demand for fossil fuels

According to nonprofit Data Center Watch, around $64 billion-worth of data center projects nationwide were delayed or blocked between May 2024 and March 2025 amid increasing local opposition.

Mayor Yang wants Monterey Park’s experience to encourage other communities to take a more active role in decisions about AI-related infrastructure. “We’re hoping other cities can follow similarly in banning data centers with proposed ballot measures,” she said, adding that whether such efforts succeed elsewhere will depend in part on how local officials respond to residents’ concerns.

The new UN report this month called on governments and companies to address AI’s environmental impacts proactively to ensure that the technology develops sustainably and its benefits are shared fairly.

Kaveh Madani, director of the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, who led the investigation team for the report, said AI “is a technological transformation that is improving the lives of billions of people around the world”. But, he added, it must be used “responsibly”.   

“We have a narrow window to ensure that the backbone of the technological revolution of our era develops within planetary limits, and that the communities who provide the critical minerals for advancing AI and the ones that host its infrastructure and e-waste are also among those who benefit from it,” he said.

This story was developed, reported and produced under the Covering Climate Now (CCNow) Climate Journalism Student Mentorship, which connects USC student journalists with professional newsrooms in CCNow’s global network. Participants receive training, editorial mentorship, and the opportunity to report and publish original climate stories with partner outlets while being paid professional freelance rates.

The post The vote that stopped a data center: US communities query resource-hungry AI appeared first on Climate Home News.

The vote that stopped a data center: US communities query resource-hungry AI