Readers respond to an article by Fiona Harvey in which she questioned whether progress is being made 10 years on from the Paris treaty
As world leaders gathered in Turkey for the UN climate talks, Fiona Harvey was right to ask, “What’s the point?” (What’s the point? Ten years after the Paris treaty, are climate talks getting anywhere?, 7 November). She pointed to how over 10 years ago in Paris, countries came together for the 21st conference and signed an agreement that aimed to limit global heating to 1.5C above preindustrial levels. For the past two years, temperatures “have exceeded that threshold”.
I was at last year’s climate summit in Brazil, where it was obvious that the Cop process itself is a big part of the problem. The agreed text did not include “fossil fuels”, not to mention any reference to transition away from them. This is largely the result of how negotiations are conducted, as they rely on unanimous consent by all participating countries.
This has pushed a “coalition of the willing” to form outside the formal process that is attempting to drive a transition away from fossil fuels. This is welcome, but maybe it is time to rethink the process entirely?
Some – including Brazil and civil society organisations – have advocated for the creation of a UN climate council or Earth council. This could circumnavigate consensus-based negotiations and drive accelerated climate action. This would empower majorities, such as the 141-country strong coalition that voted in the UN general assembly in favour of the international court of justice’s advisory opinion on countries having an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions.
Other options include strengthening the role of the international court of justice itself to ensure countries implement their climate targets. Both could be achieved by adapting the UN’s founding document, the UN charter, an idea that is generating growing interest.
As Fiona’s article highlighted, the current talks have done their part in advancing the climate agenda. But as the effects of a changing climate become increasingly severe, we need to think about how we can tackle this crisis with far more determination, at much greater speed. Olav Kjørven Former UN assistant secretary general; senior adviser, Article 109
As your report notes, Cop31’s host wants “a tangible outcome … that people can see is real” (Cop31 must deliver climate progress that people can see is real, host says, 8 November). Here is what tangible could look like: receipts.
Two years ago in Baku, governments promised $300bn a year in climate finance. Since then the public has seen pledges, press releases and delivery plans without dates. Adão Soares Barbosa, the chair of the Least Developed Countries Group, a negotiating group of 44 nations, put it plainly: credibility will be measured “not by promises made, but by commitments fulfilled”.
So measure. Every country that signed the Baku goal should table a delivery plan in Antalya naming the amount, the instrument and the year. Grants counted separately from loans. Adaptation counted separately from mitigation. No double-counting private finance toward public promises.
The figures justify the scrutiny. Barely 0.2% of available climate finance reaches small island states for adaptation, for countries whose very existence is at stake. That is not a finance gap; it is an allocation choice.
Cop31 will deserve to be called a success if people can see the money moving. Publish the plans, with dates, and let the public check the receipts. Anything less is another communique. Jackie Omotalade Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Even though the US government is noticeably absent from Cop31, the American people have voted for a new path that prioritises their economic wellbeing (Democrats to attend Cop31 climate talks boosted by midterms and eager to make up for Trump-era setbacks, 9 November). Luckily, we’ve developed a roadmap for the US – the world’s top historical emitter – to take climate action while protecting the energy security of America’s workers.
One proposal for Game Changers, a project of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, would make polluters pay into an extreme weather superfund by levying fees on large fossil fuel companies in proportion to their historical emissions. The fund would support state and local governments and federal agencies in disaster recovery and climate adaptation efforts.
Another game-changing proposal would phase down fossil fuels and provide energy security cashbacks for working families. These cashbacks would come from limiting emissions and compelling fossil-fuel producers to buy non-tradable permits at quarterly auctions. The proceeds would go directly to households to maintain their purchasing power and to community investments in resilience.
Climate action does not have to be expensive for working America. It can, in fact, be a source of economic revitalisation. Our newest crop of US leaders must make it a priority to reimagine economic and environmental policy to centre the wellbeing of people, not corporate profits. James K Boyce Amherst, Massachusetts, US
