hen the Conference of Parties was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1995, it represented hope. Nations came together with a shared goal: to curb the rapidly escalating threat of climate change. However, nearly three decades later, that initial optimism has eroded, replaced by scepticism and frustration over the COP process’s apparent inability to deliver actionable solutions. While it remains one of the most significant platforms for climate dialogue, its repeated shortcomings risk rendering it ineffective in combating the growing global climate crisis.

The enthusiasm that birthed COP has dissipated, largely because of its politicisation and the prevalence of whataboutery in climate negotiations. Instead of focusing on solutions, countries often shift blame, highlighting the failures of others to justify their own inaction. This blame game results in commitments that fall drastically short of what is needed to combat the devastating consequences of climate change, which are now evident in every corner of the world — from unprecedented wildfires in Canada to catastrophic floods in Pakistan.

Renowned environmental activists like Greta Thunberg have been vocal about this futility. Thunberg’s oft-quoted assertion that COP summits have devolved into “blah, blah, blah” captures the disillusionment many feel. Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate has similarly criticised the lack of tangible progress, noting that “the promises are empty, and the actions are invisible.” This growing cynicism among activists and the public is a direct result of COP’s failure to hold major polluters accountable.

One of the most glaring issues with the COP process is its inability to compel the biggest polluters — both nations and corporations — to meaningfully reduce their emissions. Countries like the United States, China and members of the European Union often dominate the negotiations, yet their commitments frequently fall below the expectations from developed nations. The disparity between pledges and actions erodes trust in the process. The viral image of private jets parked at a recent COP venue encapsulates this irony. While delegates flew in to discuss reducing emissions, the sheer carbon footprint of the event raised eyebrows. Critics have highlighted this as emblematic of the hypocrisy that plagues the platform. How can world leaders demand sacrifices from developing nations when their own actions often contradict their rhetoric?

The recently concluded COP29 in Baku, while highlighting some progress, underscored the persistent challenges in bridging the gap between lofty promises and actionable outcomes. A key achievement was the agreement on climate financing targets, setting a pathway to mobilise at least $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 to support vulnerable nations. This initiative aimed to address the imbalance between countries that bear the brunt of climate consequences and those most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. However, critics argue that the commitments remain inadequate compared to the urgent needs of developing countries suffering on account of flash floods, droughts and other disasters exacerbated by climate change. Many view this as yet another example of climate talks failing to hold the largest polluters accountable while neglecting equitable climate justice solutions.

The platform has also faced backlash for failing to address the chasm between the Global North and South. Wealthier nations, historically responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, continue to fall short in providing adequate financial support to vulnerable countries that bear the brunt of climate change. Despite years of promises, the commitment to mobilise $100 billion annually in climate finance remains unfulfilled. For many in the Global South, COP has become a symbol of unkept promises rather than a beacon of hope.

Developing nations, which contribute the least to global emissions, are disproportionately affected by climate disasters. For instance, small island nations face existential threats from rising sea levels, while African countries endure prolonged droughts that devastate agriculture and livelihoods. Yet, these nations often lack the resources to adapt, and their calls for climate justice are frequently overshadowed by the economic and political priorities of wealthier countries. This inequality is starkly visible in negotiations over loss and damage funding. While COP27 made headlines for establishing a loss and damage fund, the operationalisation of the fund at COP29 left much to be desired. The inability to bridge this divide undermines the credibility of the COP process and alienates those who need its interventions the most.

For the COP to regain its relevance and avoid the fate of other platforms dismissed as mere lip service, it must undergo significant reform. Pledges must become legally binding, with clear timelines and accountability mechanisms to ensure follow-through. Major polluters should face tangible consequences for failing to meet targets. Wealthy nations need to fulfill their climate finance commitments and provide additional resources for loss and damage, prioritising the needs of vulnerable countries. The platform must also address the hypocrisy that has become synonymous with its operations. Incorporating sustainable practices, both in organising conferences and in member states’ actions, can help restore credibility.

To bridge the growing divide between the Global North and South, the COP must empower developing nations by giving them a more significant voice in decision-making processes. The lived experiences and solutions from these regions should guide global climate action, as their perspectives are grounded in the immediate realities of climate change. Furthermore, public engagement must be prioritised, fostering a sense of collective responsibility among nations and citizens rather than perpetuating disillusionment.

The urgency of the climate crisis demands a united and effective response. The COP platform, with its global reach and institutional framework, still holds potential. However, without decisive action to address its shortcomings, it risks becoming a redundant exercise, perpetuating the very inaction it was designed to combat. As the world moves forward, the COP must evolve or risk losing its place as a cornerstone of global climate governance. It’s time for less talk and more transformative action before the opportunity to make a difference slips through our fingers.

The writer is a communications, public relations and sustainability professional. Her X handle is @FatimaArif