Still bad that scientists will lend public legitimacy to the generals. Also weird for Craig Segall to say that the opposition to geoengineering on the left has been mostly moral signalling. I tend to think it's about good science: danger of cascading effects and disruption of ecosystem connectivity.

Just published a short reflection on this toxic relationship we've developed with the COPs:

Please read and give feedback, if possible. But more than it: share the civil society call for reform and let's brainstorm ways to help it gain track again. Or we will be posting this again after COP31 next year in a ritual of endless frustration.

Basically, I argue that the three major problems with the UNFCCC right now are:
The system is designed to focus on emissions, not their source.
It is based on flawed multilateral consensus rules and procedures.
It opened the doors to big capital and polluters and they're running the show.

It's also important to reflect if reform is possible at all and, if we are to jump ship, is it to drown in an ocean of fragmented initiatives that can't pressure governments or to strengthen mechanisms with real convening power.
+

It seems that as soon as each COP ends, we get stuck in eulogy mode: we talk about what what great about it, what was definitely terrible and how it's dying. Yet, we're still stuck.
That's why I think it's time to stress again the UNFCCC system reform call made earlier this year (ref in text).
+

Isso é chocante. Tem wifi até em shopping hoje em dia.

I'm excited about the Fossil Fuel Phase Out conference in Colombia, it could be an important blueprint. Work with those who want to work towards a common goal - and don't let polluters in. The fact that BINGO badges still exist (and in record numbers) is baffling.

Great point. I wonder who is going to plea to the UNFCCC to reconsider the meaning of consensus? No Parties seem to be tackling this, it's always civil society and scientists pointing it out. And if there's a plea and the UNFCCC refuses to rethink it, we really need to organise a proper alternative.

Those doing advocacy inside have their own approach and I get it. But the advantage of being a climate scientist and activist is that I get to join other voices to bring alternative readings of the situation. We already have enough diplomats at COPs. Let us critics retain our ability to be frank!

It's also disheartening, as a Brazilian, to see the issues we've always faced in national politics, where the more radical of us are reprehended for demanding more from our progressive governments, transfer onto the COP system. They expected us to praise everything just because it's Brazil.

They called it the COP of Truth but refused to embrace the battle against fossil fuels until last minute. When that obviously collapses, we're supposed to just be content with an autonomous initiative and not object to a final text that leaves the source of the crisis nameless?

Agribusiness responsible for criminal deforestation in Brazil got badges, a space in the Blue Zone, in partnership with a Brazilian govt agency. They even did a barbecue there.
Clearly, Von der Leyen is not the only one to believe you can talk about emissions without dealing with the sources.