Humanity’s attempts at international solutions to the climate crisis so far are not working. Successfully reversing the trend toward disaster will require transforming our existing mechanisms with more robust global governance.
Our primary existing mechanism, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is just that, a framework, under which more substantive treaties must be negotiated. An annual Conference of Parties (COP) takes place for this purpose.
Two agreements reached at COPs under the UNFCCC framework have been seen as significant steps forward, yet neither has succeeded in reducing worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Ominously, these have increased steadily with only brief dips coinciding with the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020-21 peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, featured binding commitments by countries to reduce emissions between 2005 and 2020. Although 192 countries ratified it, the US did not, and Canada withdrew after ratifying. In all, over 35 developed countries participated fully, reducing their own emissions to a limited degree as agreed, even as total global emissions increased.
The Paris Agreement, in effect since 2016, set a goal of limiting the global average temperature increase. Nominally binding, it requires countries to set their own voluntary emission pledges rather than imposing targets. The pledges are generally seen as collectively insufficient, with the US and the EU also failing to meet their own pledges. The Paris Agreement also includes provisions on climate adaptation and finance. Although 195 countries ratified the Paris agreement, including the US, President Trump has withdrawn the US from it twice, once in each of his terms in office.
A third, less ambitious COP accomplishment was the creation in 2022 of a climate loss and damage fund to compensate countries that bear the worst impacts.
Unfortunately, with these exceptions, annual COPs have generally been viewed as failures, leading to doubts about their value, even as the evidence of harm becomes increasingly clear and visibly urgent.
The unfortunate pattern is that a few countries typically block progress for the whole world. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations blamed developed countries for a failure to increase climate finance commitments in 2024. Experts at the Brookings Institution excoriated COP delegates for failing to commit to ending fossil fuel use in 2023. Moreover, in 2021, India obstructed a proposal to phase out coal. And in 2018, due to an objection from oil-producing countries the Conference failed to adopt its own report which it had commissioned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Beyond the challenge of consensus decision-making, COPs have also been criticized for their protracted negotiations and weak follow-through on agreements. To address these limitations, structural reforms are needed to shift COPs toward delivery and action, sharing best practices, holding countries accountable, and financing the transition. Proposals for such reforms have been outlined in two open letters: one from the Club of Rome, released in 2023 and signed by former heads of state and influential decision makers, and another released by Transparency International in March 2025 and co-signed by more than 250 organizations. The letters highlight the urgent need to address conflicts of interest in climate negotiations. Among other things, the coalition called for exclusion of high-polluting industry lobbyists, adoption of stronger transparency standards, and a reformed COP presidency selection process to restore credibility and integrity to climate diplomacy.
This issue is also taken up in the Climate Governance Commission’s (CGC) 2023 report, which highlights the urgent need for stronger global governance across key areas. Since the report’s release, several high-priority proposals have been further advanced, including: (1) strengthening the Climate COP process, with closer alignment to the biennial Biodiversity COPs and a bold international climate and nature finance proposal, (2) establishing a Planetary Emergency Platform, alongside a UNGA Declaration on Planetary Emergency, (3) improving international Earth system monitoring and reporting to address risks from Earth system tipping points, including possible UNSC action, (4) creating an international Climate and Nature Policy Innovation Hub, in partnership with initiatives such as Climate Policy Radar and the Global Commons Alliance, and (5) advancing “next generation” global governance, including proposals for a Global Environment Organization and an International Court for the Environment, building on the current momentum at international courts such as International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice.
| Grantmaking foundations play a crucial role around the UNFCCC by funding civil society participation, advancing climate justice, and supporting the development of policies aligned with climate targets. They also help build the capacity of Global South actors, Indigenous communities, and youth to influence negotiations and implement locally grounded climate solutions. One of the leading facilitators of donor collaboration on climate change is ClimateWorks. Founded in 2008, it coordinates funding strategies among philanthropies to support global climate goals, many aligned with the UNFCCC process, such as the Funders Table. Climate Lead is another leading guide, helping donors to deploy over $4 billion in climate donations since 2019. |