In the escalating climate crisis, the annual UN Climate Change Conference, or COP, has long been heralded as the premier stage for global climate action. These summits were envisioned as platforms of unity, where nations collaborate to address the ever-growing threat of climate change.

Yet, as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the 1.5°C limit outlined in the Paris Agreement slips further out of reach, doubts about the effectiveness and legitimacy of COP are mounting. Do these conferences genuinely catalyze transformative action, or are they merely platforms for greenwashing and business-as-usual negotiations disguised as climate solutions?

The choice of host countries increasingly reflects a troubling paradox. COP events are often held in nations heavily reliant on fossil fuels, with COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, standing out as a striking example. During the summit, Azerbaijan’s president referred to fossil fuels as a “gift from God,” a statement glaringly at odds with the urgency of emissions reduction. Such positioning raises serious questions about the messages these summits project to the global community. How can meaningful climate action be taken seriously when platforms intended to foster solutions seemingly endorse and even embolden the very industries driving the crisis?

A deeper credibility issue lies in the inclusion of fossil fuel lobbyists and polluters within COP negotiations, a glaring conflict of interest that contradicts the core mission of the event. This contradiction echoes the absurdity of inviting tobacco industry executives to influence public health policy. The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has successfully excluded tobacco companies from discussions, a precedent that highlights what is possible. Just as the Financial Action Task Force would not invite money launderers to shape anti-money laundering policies, COP must exclude those whose interests are fundamentally at odds with its objectives. Failing to do so jeopardizes the legitimacy of the entire process.

Despite the lofty ambitions articulated at these gatherings, the outcomes frequently fall short of the urgency demanded by the climate crisis. The global stocktake report from COP28 unequivocally confirmed that the world is not on track to meet the Paris Agreement goals. Even under full implementation, current pledges remain far from sufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C.

The focus of COP events often gravitates toward economic deal-making rather than the substantive emissions reductions required to address the problem. As the 1.5°C target slips further out of reach, the focus must not only remain on keeping it alive but also shift toward preparing for the impacts of surpassing it and building resilience in the most vulnerable communities.

This troubling trend is compounded by the alarming increase in fossil fuel lobbying and greenwashing at COP events. At COP29, the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the delegations of some nations, highlighting an unsettling reality. Instead of being catalysts for progress, these conferences are increasingly seen as opportunities for polluters to safeguard their interests.

Greenwashing, where organizations exaggerate their environmental efforts, further undermines the credibility of COP. Promises of sustainable fuels, net-zero pathways, and carbon markets frequently lack the transparency and accountability necessary to drive real change, perpetuating a cycle of rhetoric without results.

As the climate crisis intensifies, it is clear that the structure and objectives of COP events must be fundamentally reassessed. Without transformative reforms, these conferences risk becoming part of the problem rather than the solution, perpetuating a cycle of ineffective dialogue. For COP to remain relevant and credible, it must move beyond being a stage for rhetoric and become a mechanism for actionable, enforceable climate commitments.

One of the most pressing reforms involves addressing the inherent conflict of interest in allowing fossil fuel interests to participate in climate negotiations. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as the organizing body of COP, must establish a clear policy excluding entities with significant ties to fossil fuel industries from negotiations and official events. An independent panel of experts, free from political and corporate influence, should oversee the vetting of participants, ensuring that those actively undermining global climate efforts are excluded.

Equally important is ensuring that commitments made during COP are translated into tangible actions. The global stocktake framework established by the Paris Agreement provides a basis for accountability but requires enhancement. The UNFCCC should mandate annual public reviews of each country’s progress toward its climate targets, integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics into these reviews.

ESG ratings, which measure environmental performance, provide a quantifiable means to assess emissions reductions, renewable energy adoption, and ecosystem protection. By aligning the global stocktake framework with ESG criteria, the process can achieve greater transparency and comparability, exposing gaps between stated ambitions and actual progress.

Incorporating ESG ratings into the global stocktake could create financial and reputational incentives. High ESG ratings could attract preferential financing from international institutions like the World Bank or the IMF, rewarding nations and corporations for meaningful climate progress. Publicly available ESG ratings would increase accountability, encouraging governments and businesses to improve their scores and align their actions with global climate goals.

However, integrating ESG metrics is not without challenges. Variability in standards and risks of greenwashing must be addressed. The UNFCCC could collaborate with ESG rating agencies to develop a globally accepted climate-focused framework, ensuring the metrics used are rigorous, measurable, and verifiable. Smaller nations, often lacking the resources for robust ESG-aligned reporting, should be provided financial and technical assistance to ensure inclusivity.

Another critical area of reform involves legal mechanisms for enforcing climate commitments. Establishing a tribunal, possibly under the International Court of Justice, could create a platform for holding states and corporations accountable for failing to meet emissions targets. Penalties such as trade restrictions or financial sanctions could serve as tangible consequences for inaction. Institutions like the IMF and World Bank could condition development loans and grants on measurable climate actions, adding a layer of financial accountability.

Addressing the global climate crisis requires centering the voices of those most affected. Decentralized assemblies representing vulnerable nations and communities must have a direct role in COP negotiations, ensuring that those of more powerful actors do not overshadow their priorities. Increased funding for adaptation and mitigation efforts in the Global South, through mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund, is essential for achieving equitable outcomes.

The complexity of enforcing global climate commitments stems from the decentralized nature of global governance. While no single entity can act as a “climate police,” a combination of empowered institutions, financial incentives, and public pressure can foster meaningful progress. Organizations such as the G20, IMF, and World Bank can play pivotal roles by linking aid, trade agreements, and development projects to measurable climate performance. Meanwhile, civil society and investigative media can act as watchdogs, exposing greenwashing and non-compliance.

The stakes are undeniably high. COP was envisioned as a beacon of hope for coordinated global action, but the growing disconnect between its promises and outcomes threatens to undermine its purpose. For COP to fulfill its mission, it must evolve into a platform that not only facilitates genuine climate action but also ensures accountability and amplifies the voices of those on the frontlines of the crisis. Only then can it reclaim its place as a meaningful force for change in the fight against climate catastrophe.