Does COP still do the job?

In recent years, the United Nations Climate Conference has come under scrutiny for a number of reasons. Some say that there could be greater continuity between COP summits while others have criticised it for being too corporate-friendly and close to the fossil fuels industry.

Last year in particular, there was a shared sentiment that the final agreement at COP28 did not go far enough in transitioning away from fossil fuels. But this year, it seems that even world leaders are avoiding the conference, which is counterintuitive to say the least.

It has been reported that the leaders of the 13 biggest emitters of carbon — countries responsible for more than 70% of 2023’s heat-trapping gases — did not appear at this year’s gathering. So what doe this mean for the future of COP and, ultimately, the future of our planet? We asked and the industry answered…

Roland Harwood, Co-founder of Climate Tech Supercluster and Community of Practice Convener of Net Zero Living

“COP’s effectiveness is increasingly questionable – its too large, talk-heavy, and dominated by fossil fuel interests. Its expansive scale can dilute focus, while the voices of those most impacted by climate change often go unheard. The disconnect between high-level negotiations and the everyday lives of people grappling with climate impacts only widens as COP fails to translate lofty pledges into immediate, actionable outcomes. Yet, with climate change presenting the greatest challenge—and the greatest innovation and investment opportunity—on the planet, COP’s purpose remains essential. To become a true catalyst for action, COP must evolve to amplify urgency and deliver impact at scale.

One way forward is for COP to prioritize and showcase impactful, on-the-ground initiatives that drive real change. Programs like the Climate Tech Supercluster and Net Zero Living exemplify the type of projects COP should support and showcase. The Climate Tech Supercluster brings together a range of climate tech innovators to accelerate sustainable solutions, emphasizing collaboration across sectors to fast-track scalable technologies for a net-zero future. Similarly, Net Zero Living enables UK towns and cities to adopt innovative, sustainable solutions tailored to local needs, proving that climate action can be accessible and relevant to people and places everywhere.

By spotlighting these models, COP could shift from abstract policy discussions to practical, replicable examples that highlight the economic and social opportunities of climate action. Scaling up support for such initiatives would position COP as a springboard for global action that connects climate targets directly to community-level benefits—creating jobs, fostering innovation, and making the climate mission tangible for all. In doing so, COP can transform into a driving force for climate solutions that resonate locally while advancing the urgent global mission for a sustainable future.”

Abb-d Taiyo, Co-founder and CCO of Driftime® – A Design & Impact Agency

“There’s always room for improvement in global conversations about the planet, and this year’s COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, is no exception. While events like COP are a way of keeping the conversation alive, their credibility is increasingly undermined by corporate influence, greed, and a sincere lack of progress on a global transition away from fossil fuels.

Last year’s COP28 faced widespread criticism for failing to deliver an agreement that adequately curtailed fossil fuel use, despite the clear urgency to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The inclusion of representatives from the fossil fuel industry in the negotiation process further fuelled concerns about conflicts of interest and diluted ambition. There’s an opportunity for COP29 to address these issues by placing transparency at the forefront, and distancing itself from industry lobbying to restore trust.

One of Driftime®’s partners, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), will be speaking at the Global Climate Finance Framework (GCFF) at COP29 this year, sharing insights on the Climate Finance Reform Compass, a platform designed and built by Driftime® to help accelerate impact in the field. The framework tracking tool works to build consensus, and coordinate actions across governments, civil society, and the private sector for meaningful financial reform to meet our climate goals.

Events like COP29 provide a designated space for people, organisations, and institutions to hold actionable conversations about the climate crisis, and whilst the processes and outcomes aren’t always aligned, there’s a clear need for transparent, future-focused dialogue that can influence real change.”

Dr. Melissa Sterry, Scientist and Founder of futures and innovation consultancy Bioratorium

“To cite James Hansen, ‘a miracle will occur’ is not a sensible climate policy. Hansen’s 2023 paper is just one of several published this past dozen plus years that make evident that it would be wishful thinking to imagine that humanity can contain the climate system within the limits of COP29, and before it COP28. Given not merely the matter that anthropogenic emissions continue to rise far and above the levels required to hit the target in the 2015 Paris Agreement, but now multiple Earth systems indicate they have or are in the process of tipping from the regime associated with the Holocene and into a new geological era of which the name is still to be settled.

As to why COP28 and now 29 are working to targets considered to be unrealistic by Hansen, among other foremost authorities on climate science, Bill McGuire nailed it in his piece for the Guardian in January 2023. He discussed how it ‘beggars belief that the UN thought it a good idea to allow an authoritarian petro-state to host an already compromised COP28’ [2]. I stand with Hansen, with McGuire, and with the 180 climate advocates that chose to boycott COP28 on the grounds that the gathering is now so highjacked by vested interests as to lack any significant agency to inspire wide-spread action, let alone shift the policy needle in the right direction. 

Much as I recognise the good intentions of some, if not many of those that attended COP28 and now COP29, putting it frankly, it’s clear that the event now amounts to little more than a glorified trade show. It is a place in which umpteen parties are seemingly more concerned with flogging their various wares and services, and with taking selfies with high profile climate advocates, than they are with the details of the science of climate, and with the consensus among those that pioneered the field and their advisories in light of the latest data on Earth’s climate and related systems. Many of those now attending boast not so much as an A level in science, let alone have the expertise to play any meaningful role in shaping climate policy such that humanity mitigates against worst-case outcomes for our current civilisation. 

Worse still is the hypocrisy of many attending the event – those that talk the reduce carbon emissions talk, yet not only show little if any inability to walk it, but expect others to give up the things that they clearly haven’t. Any that imagine that comment to be harsh ought to invest some time in speaking with wide-ranging members of the public and reflect on their commentaries, and in the process consider how voting patterns suggest that trust in policymakers and in leadership more generally is now so low that the majority American voting public just voted in a president whose primary intent is to rip up the policy rule book and the institutions that author it.”

Samer Bagaeen, Technical Director in Town Planning & Stakeholder Capability at Arcadis

“What COP29 has reinforced (again) is the need for urgent action (again!) but this needs to be enabled by a consistent and implementable action plan through all intervention points and beyond and across countries and the agendas of all of the multilateral agencies and the International Finance Institutions.

Standardised terminology and understanding, consistency in regulation, absolute transparency about social outcomes, social equity, cooperation, new technologies and most importantly, visibility and commitment to how the green transition is going to be financed are the essential building blocks. COPs must be open to the citizens of the host cities/countries to access. Delegates should not hide in blue or green zones!”

Jude Pullen, Creative Technologist & Physical Prototyping Expert

“The Design Council is in a unique position, because of its apparent impartiality, to challenge the status quote, and also lead – not just in thought, but in action also. Making full use of its extensive network of experts, it should be able to curate bold new initiatives, which hold various sectors to a higher standard. This is not just aspirational, but evidently essential to do more than we are at present.

COP is an opportunity for the Design Council to not just ‘be present’ – but to ‘be provocative’ – I hope that its members can do more to ’cause the right kind of trouble’ and fund/support work which is not always comfortable, but is unquestionably necessary.

The UK remains an influential voice in the global stage, and the British Design Council can be a voice which understands the deeper ramifications of technology, economics, politics and more – and uses design methodologies to help make a serious impact in many of the world’s intractable problems. If a design discussion is not ‘dividing the room’ to a useful degree, it is arguably not fostering the depth or debate and decision making that is necessary for Design Council’s Design for Planet manifesto.”

James Vaccaro, CEO of RePattern

“I’d had a few comments on my Linkedin post suggesting that the COP process might need to be structured more like a hackathon… but in essence it needs to be dramatically redesigned to avoid the parts it has missed so far.

A few additional thoughts:

• The First COP had <200 delegates, 15 years later it was around 10,000, last year there were about 100,000 in UAE. Not only has it grown massively, but it has been a bit of a ‘barnacle’ development – lots of me-too events all clamouring for oxygen, with insufficient signposting, too much grandstanding and duplication, not enough exploration or innovation processes.
• Consensus is important – indeed it is necessary to ensure that everyone is on board. BUT that doesn’t mean that having an all-parties conversation is the best way of getting to the most ambitious consensus. Having coalitions of the willing acting untethered to those wanting to move slower can help demonstrate and ‘prove the case’ to the sceptics through their actions, rather than needing to win the argument first.
• …Building on the last point, a consensus where everyone has to be pulled towards a minimum level of agreement ends up with the lowest possible bar… and necessarily all the attention is on the minimum, rather than a race to the top where the focus is on the maximum possible. I experienced this directly in coalitions connected to the UN. (UN PRB and Net Zero Banking Alliance). Once there was a common bar to get across, the debate was all about how low the bar could be. Spotlighting the progress of the frontrunners is a far more effective strategy (this was practiced by some coalitions like We Mean Business)
• There’s a huge amount of protocol and security to ‘get into’ COP yet despite that we find fossil fuel lobbyists abound. If there were fewer security and more people who enjoy network and facilitation ‘holding’ the process then there would be more chance of being engaged effectively in the debate.
• Finally, the number of people involved makes it difficult for genuine surprise or breakthroughs.. There is a natural gravitation towards technocratic issues (take the UK decision to launch a consultation on whether or not to have its own green taxonomy, a year after the UK Green Taxonomy Advisory Group had advised what the taxonomy should be..!?! Opening debates to a broader range of entrepreneurial thinking by having challenge-holders (countries/companies etc) host ideas/challenge sessions could enable freer thinking. This often happens ‘in the cracks’ right now, but could be more planned for.
• There are comments (including the recent letter by Figueres et al) about COP being distributed through the year. This could happen in other climate weeks (New York, Abu Dhabi, London, Bonn, Davos? etc).”