At time of writing on 24 June 2025, the delegates at the sixty-second sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are enjoying a ‘guided tour on the history of climate negotiations.’ The event, which is more conveniently known as SB62, is the last formal gathering in the run-up to November’s COP30 in Brazil.
SB62 is taking place this week in Bonn, Germany, and its guided tour promises an exploration of 30 years of climate negotiations featuring original documents, artefacts, rare photos and videos. The painfully slow and increasingly corrupt COP process has been the bane of the Laundromat’s existence for quite some time. That may be why the thought of this guided tour conjures up an image of a small, haggard group of climate catastrophe survivors in the year 2100 being shown around the dusty archaeological vestiges of the world’s failed attempts to stave off global warming.
However, it is still ‘only’ 2025 and there may be some hope left. On 23 June 2025 more than 200 civil society and indigenous peoples’ groups expressed their combined loss of patience with the COP process with the publication of a United Call for an Urgent Reform of the UN Climate Talks. While even some climate talks are better than no climate talks – we would otherwise be on track for about 4 degrees of global warming by 2100 – the process has been frustratingly snail-paced and beset by fossil fuel industry interference in recent years. 30 years on and we are still on track for 2.7 degrees of warming under current nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which is well beyond Paris Agreement limits.
The Laundromat archives contain a full study of COPrology (a fairly apt term…look it up), such as the latest PR faux-pas by the COP30 hosts as they razed protected Amazon rainforest to create a four-lane highway for climate negotiators to enjoy a smoother route to the conference venue. NordSIP has also covered the near fiasco of last year’s COP29, which was held in the authoritarian petrostate of Azerbaijan. This followed COP28, not only held in the fossil fuel producing United Arab Emirates (UAE) but presided over by the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). COP28 was especially popular with Saudi Arabia, whose aggressive lobbying saw any meaningful wording pressure-hosed out of the final statement.
The 200 signatory organisations behind the publication of the call for reform of the climate talks are seeking a genuine overhaul of the decision-making process and much stronger COP governance. They also want smaller COPs, which they claim have gradually morphed into enormous, inefficient and ultimately pointless global trade fairs. COPs 27, 28, and 29 were hosted by Egypt, the UAE, and Azerbaijan respectively. As well as being major fossil fuel producers, these nations are not exactly renowned for their open and inclusive attitude to freedom of speech and healthy political discourse. These COPs saw protesters and campaigners corralled away from the main event venue, and in many cases rounded up and arrested along with local journalists. The signatories of the call for reform want to see future COP hosts selected on the basis that they have demonstrated tangible progress on climate action and allow open and free debate on the issue.
Another persistent point of contention has been the lack of representation of those nations and groups most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. These are often poorer nations that struggle to finance the travel and attendance of large delegate contingents and whose visas are often held up in red tape. The signatories want to see dedicated fast-track visas for COP events and smaller, more focused events. They would like the whole ‘trade show’ trend eradicated. Recent COPs have seen hundreds of lobbyists and representatives from the fossil fuel, plastics, and petrochemical industries. The high-emitting meat industry lobby was all over COP28 like a rash, wherever food, agriculture, and biodiversity were on the agenda. It may seem obvious, but there is clearly a need for a strong framework to address conflicts of interest and reclaim the climate negotiations from the grip of the very perpetrators of the crisis.
Another big problem with the COP process is that despite progress in some areas like disclosure, target setting, and renewables investment, precious little has happened in three decades. Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to rise each year. The signatories want to see a move to majority-based decision making rather than the current consensus process, which is fair game for the likes of the Saudis and other petrostates that will always throw a spanner in the works at the last minute. As the declaration points out, there are many other international negotiations that work efficiently with majority voting. The UN General Assembly (UNGA), the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and even the UNFCCC’s own Green Climate Fund (GCF) all operate without the need for full consensus.
The Laundromat is a vehicle for letting off some steam at the greenwashing and negative lobbying of the enemies of sustainability. It therefore senses a kindred spirit in this latest declaration’s use of language. The signatories want to see the end of ‘accountability-free blackbox negotiations and declaration mania.’ This excellent turn of phrase refers to the lack of transparency during COP events, with certain delegates excluded from certain closed-door sessions and nice-sounding declarations being made without proper follow-up or any legal repercussions when they are found to be empty promises.
The 200 organisations behind this call for reform sound as angry and frustrated as the Laundromat and most other people involved in sustainable investment have become in recent years. They believe the current COP process is unfit for purpose and must undergo major changes to regain its effectiveness and credibility. Nevertheless, it is our only genuinely global forum for climate negotiations and therefore worth saving as the climate crisis intensifies.
Commenting on the joint call for reform, Lien Vandamme of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) said: “For thirty years, the climate negotiations have systematically failed to deliver climate justice, undermined international law and allowed the fossil fuel industry to write the rules. The absence of agreed procedures for decision-making allows big polluting countries to hold the negotiations hostage. The lack of accountability gives a false sense of impunity. Yet, effective multilateralism is the only way out of the multiple global crises. This year is key, including with several international courts working on climate advisory opinions. The time is now for the UNFCCC to become the climate regime it should have been for the past decades: one centred around international obligations to prevent dangerous climate change and remedy related harm.”
