Published

8 months ago

September 22, 2025

Alice Rush

Mads Christensen is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

In a year that marks the UN’s 80th anniversary and 30 years since the first UN climate summit, the global multilateral system tasked with preventing disaster remains incapable of delivering the speed and scale of change we need — even as the available carbon budget shrinks and tipping points loom.

At the heart of this paralysis lies the broken consensus model of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Every decision must be agreed to by all 198 Parties. In practice, this means even one country can block the rest of the world from acting — and a number often do.

We’ve seen this play out repeatedly: oil-saturated nations derailing fossil fuel phase-out language, rich nations delaying climate finance, and authoritarian regimes using geopolitics as leverage to stall negotiations. But it’s not just fossil fuel exporters or autocracies causing the deadlock.

The result is a ‘race to the bottom’ that rewards inaction, dilutes ambition, and sidelines the world’s most vulnerable. It’s time to end this cycle. It’s time for majority voting at UN climate summits and to reform what are now outdated governance structures.

System is failing vulnerable nations

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, was a diplomatic breakthrough — but it lacks enforcement mechanisms. Implementation has stalled. Emissions are still rising. Fossil fuel production is expanding, and we are hurtling toward 3.1°C of warming by the end of the century.

In short: the system is not delivering and the world cannot afford another lost decade of incrementalism.

This isn’t just a technical problem — it’s a moral one. The communities most affected by the climate crisis are also those least responsible for causing it. From small island states facing existential sea level rise to millions across Africa and South Asia suffering crop failure, water stress, and energy poverty, the injustice is staggering.

Sep 18, 2025

News

UN raises COP30 allowance to help with Belém accommodation crisis

But funding shortfalls risk reducing the number of government negotiators who can receive the payment unless more money is put on the table

Read more
Sep 21, 2025

News

Treaty to protect deep ocean reaches key threshold for entry into force

The High Seas Treaty, now signed into law by 60 countries, is seen as crucial to achieving a global goal of protecting 30% of land and sea ecosystems by 2030

Read more

These nations have consistently called for stronger action. But under consensus rules, they are routinely overruled or ignored. Instead, decisions are held hostage by the interests of the few: fossil fuel-producing states, authoritarian governments, and wealthy nations with regressive leadership, like the US under President Trump.

Consensus has become a tool of obstruction. We need a model that actually gives climate justice a chance to prevail — one where the majority can act, and the vulnerable are empowered.

Momentum for reform is growing

The case for majority voting is not just practical — in the light of recent judicial developments, the legal and political implications are being magnified.

In July, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion stating that fossil fuel licensing, consumption, and subsidization could amount to violations of international law and basic human rights. This raises the legal stakes for governments that continue to expand fossil fuel production while obstructing climate negotiations.

Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu (left) in the courtroom in The Hague as the ICJ delivers its advisory opinion (Photo: ICJ)

Simultaneously, political momentum for UN reform is growing. In a speech this month, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed a more “just and equitable global governance system” in a pointed critique of institutions dominated by outdated rules and powerful interests.

The UN Secretary-General’s own flagship initiative for global reform, the UN80 process, underscores just how overdue these governance changes are.

The company tracking energy transition minerals back to the mines

Although key reform proposals have been delayed beyond this year’s UN General Assembly, the Secretary-General’s mandate implementation review paints a picture of systemic dysfunction: overburdened mandates, siloed agencies, and an avalanche of reporting with little impact or accountability.

If the broader UN system is struggling to deliver on its own instructions, climate governance must not remain stuck in the same bureaucratic inertia. Majority voting could be the first real test of whether the UN can shift from fragmentation to function.

Brazil’s leadership needed

We must ensure that this momentum is used to strengthen — not weaken — international climate governance and majority voting is a clear and immediate step that can deliver results. The UNFCCC’s draft rules of procedure — pending since COP1 in 1995 — already contain provisions for majority decision-making. Their adoption has been blocked for three decades by countries benefiting from the status quo.

Brazil, as host of COP30 in 2025, has already taken a leadership role by proposing innovations in climate cooperation. In a letter to Parties in May, it floated the idea of an “alignment” of actors and efforts— signals that the country is open to innovations in cooperation that go beyond the consensus trap.

That opening must be seized with the courage to act and this year’s UN General Assembly offers governments an opportunity to push for procedural reform and test majority-backed decisions.

As governments bet on carbon trading, Japan’s early scheme spotlights pitfalls

Brazil’s leadership, and support from a wide coalition of countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific, and progressive EU members, can tip the balance. Multilateralism that cannot function — that enables the few to obstruct the many — is no longer credible and must evolve.

While consensus can remain our preferred approach, where there are a few blockers to the majority, we must instead push ahead with science, justice and majority voting to ensure progress.

This is not unprecedented. Other international bodies, from the World Health Assembly to the International Labour Organization, use majority voting when needed. It’s time the UNFCCC caught up. The climate crisis is the defining challenge of our time.

The world’s people are demanding action, and a majority of nations are ready to respond. But a system where one or two countries — whether fossil fuel powers or political saboteurs like Trump’s America — can block the entire planet from acting is not just undemocratic, it’s deadly.

Let consensus be the starting point. But when the majority are ready, and the stakes are existential, let the majority act. Let the majority decide.

The post It’s time for majority voting at UN climate summits appeared first on Climate Home News.

It’s time for majority voting at UN climate summits

Climate Change

Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut

Published

19 hours ago

May 15, 2026

Alice Rush

The UK is no longer the top contributor to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund (GCF), after the government announced that it only intends to honour half of its most recent pledge.

Amid wider cuts to its climate aid for developing countries, the UK informed the GCF in May that it will reduce its commitment for the 2024-27 period to £815m ($1.1bn).

In doing so, the Labour government is drastically cutting a Conservative pledge of £1.62bn ($2.16bn), hailed by former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s government as “the biggest single funding commitment the UK has made to help the world tackle climate change”.

This “record” pledge also meant the UK became the top GCF funder, after the Trump administration withdrew $4bn in pledged US funds in 2025.

Now, the UK follows the US in becoming the second major donor to cancel substantial funding, leaving aid experts concerned that other developed countries will follow suit.

As the chart below shows, the UK’s total past and promised contributions to the GCF have now dropped below those of Germany, France and Japan.

GCF pledges by top 10 donors. Dark bars indicate pledges from the initial resource mobilisation in 2014 and the first replenishment round in 2019, while light blue bars indicate pledges from the second replenishment round in 2023. Source: NRDC GCF pledge tracker.

The GCF is the largest dedicated UN climate fund and is seen as a vital way of raising grant-based climate finance for developing countries. It oversees more than $20bn worth of funding across 354 projects and programmes.

Developed countries, such as the UK, are obliged under the Paris Agreement to provide climate finance. One of the main ways to do this is through specialised climate funds, such as the GCF.

However, despite countries committing to increase their climate finance over time, progress in scaling up GCF contributions between funding rounds has been gradual.

With its now-revoked £1.62bn pledge in 2023, the UK was among the donors that had increased its GCF pledging compared with the previous 2019 funding round.

The latest reduction means the UK will now provide around 45% less funding than it did during the 2019 round. This is the biggest reduction between rounds by any major donor, apart from the US.

In an email to the GCF board, reported by the Financial Times, the fund’s executive director Mafalda Duarte said the UK’s actions were “expected to have a material impact on the delivery” of the fund’s projects.

According to the newspaper, Duarte noted that the move came as the UK cuts its overall aid budget in order to “invest more in addressing growing security threats”.

In March, the UK government announced plans to spend “around £6bn” of its aid budget on climate projects in developing countries over the next three years.

Carbon Brief analysis suggests that this spending amounts to roughly halving the UK’s annual climate finance, when accounting changes and inflation are factored in.

The post Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut

Climate Change

Federal Budget must give Aussies a ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’: Greenpeace

Published

20 hours ago

May 15, 2026

Alice Rush

SYDNEY, Tuesday 12 May 2026 — Ahead of tonight’s Federal Budget, the following statement can be attributed to David Ritter, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific:

“As the Albanese government hands down the budget, it has an obligation to both look after households today, and to set Australians up for a flourishing future.

“The government has an opportunity to give Aussies a fair shake of the sauce bottle by taxing gas corporations fairly, accelerating the clean, affordable renewable solutions we already have, backing its own nature law reforms with appropriate funding and by protecting our oceans, forests and climate from polluting gas projects.

“The massive swell for fairly taxing gas corporations shows the public mood has permanently shifted; most Australians rightly do not accept that gas corporations like Woodside and Santos should make obscene war profits, while everyday people face soaring bills, and natural wonders like Scott Reef are threatened by reckless gas drilling projects.

“The global energy shock has exposed the dangers of our dependence on coal, oil and gas, and made clear that our future security and prosperity is in clean, affordable and homegrown wind and solar power.

“This must be a budget to benefit Australians, not gas corporations.”

Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s 2026 Federal Budget expectations can be found here.

–ENDS–

Notes:

Greenpeace has spokespeople available for interview before and after the budget announcement, including experts who can speak on Australia’s climate and emissions, the gas tax, Woodside’s Browse project, Labor’s new nature law, and our renewable future.

Media contact:

Kimberley Bernard on +61407 581 404 or kbenard@greenpeace.org

Federal Budget must give Aussies a ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’: Greenpeace

Climate Change

‘A new low’: Greenpeace responds to Woodside’s flawed emissions reduction and renewables modelling

Published

20 hours ago

May 15, 2026

Alice Rush

PERTH, Tuesday 12 May 2026 — In response to Woodside’s Browse economic modelling released yesterday, the following comments can be attributed to WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Geoff Bice:

“Greenpeace has analysed Woodside’s report on the polluting Browse gas project against independent modelling of WA’s energy system and emissions, and found glaring holes in the case made for the project.

“Woodside has reached a new low by modelling WA’s emissions reduction and energy transition pathway based on wildly expensive and risky decarbonisation options simply to justify its reckless Browse development at Scott Reef, initially rejected by the WA Environmental Protection Authority on environmental grounds.

“The WA Government cannot allow climate policy to be directed by climate vandals like Woodside. The clearest way to get WA’s emissions down is by setting clear emission reduction targets, which Greenpeace continues to call for.”

Key points from Greenpeace’s analysis of Woodside’s modelling follow:

Gas is the most expensive form of available electricity generation, according to the CSIRO; IEEFA also found that Browse gas would be about four times higher than the current average production cost of domestic gas in WA.
Direct air capture (DAC): The model assumes WA will be able to capture 6.9Mt of CO₂/year by 2050. Worldwide, the current total volumes captured are 0.01 Mt CO₂/year. DAC is currently priced at a minimum of $USD-400/tonne with many estimates ranging higher. Even reduced to $200/tonne, the cost per year of the volumes modelled becomes a staggering $1.38 billion, or $34.5 billion by 2050.
Carbon dumping, or carbon capture and storage (CCS): The model requires 40 times the amount of sequestration that occurred last year at WA’s only CCS operation on Barrow Island (32.4Mt compared to 1.3Mt). Barrow Island CCS has consistently failed to meet requirements and last year alone cost $344m (at 265 AU$/tCO₂). At those prices the Woodside modelling results in a cost per year by 2050 to be $8.6 billion.
Woodside’s Pluto gas facility has been supplying less than 4% to the WA market, far short of the 15% required under the WA domestic gas reservation policy.
Woodside includes $1.6 billion payable via the Offshore Petroleum Levy. The Levy was implemented to offset offshore decommissioning costs to the taxpayer but is set to expire in 2030 — 3 years before the Browse field is proposed to come online.