Why un climate talks keep failing: the consensus problem that’s blocking climate action

For over three decades, UN climate negotiations have operated under a simple but paralyzing rule: every country must agree before any action can be taken. This consensus requirement, originally pushed by oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia back in 1991, has effectively given every country veto power over climate progress—and experts say it’s a major reason why global emissions have risen 40% since the early 1990s despite decades of climate summits.

The dysfunction is visible at every Conference of the Parties (COP). Professional facilitator Christine Peringer described the chaotic process she witnessed: delegates crowding around single sheets of paper making last-minute revisions in ink, talking over each other, and struggling through “haphazard” negotiations. Meanwhile, countries committed to fossil fuels can simply refuse to budge on key issues, forcing everyone else to water down their ambitions to reach agreement.

Most other UN bodies allow majority voting when consensus fails, and environmental treaties like the Montreal Protocol (which successfully protected the ozone layer) use the threat of voting to encourage genuine compromise. Climate talks have no such backup option. Oil-producing countries blocked voting rules from the start, and those rules remain “bracketed”—diplomatically frozen—on every COP agenda.

As COP30 unfolds in Brazil, some experts are calling for bold reforms: allowing majority votes, redefining consensus to mean “something countries can live with” rather than enthusiastic agreement, or even forming smaller coalitions of ambitious countries willing to move ahead without the laggards. The stakes couldn’t be higher—current national climate pledges would lead to catastrophic warming of up to 3.1°C, far beyond the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target.