In brief
The Global Environment Outlook report, a comprehensive analysis of the world's environmental challenges, has been released without governmental endorsement due to disagreements regarding its findings, particularly concerning fossil fuel usage and climate change. The U.S. and other nations expressed their refusal to agree to the report, leading to claims of 'hijacking' of the scientific process, as emphasized by co-chair Sir Robert Watson.
A key UN report on the state of the global environment has been 'hijacked' by the United States and other countries who were unwilling to go along with the scientific findings, the co-chair has told the BBC.
The Global Environment Outlook, the result of six years' work, connects climate change, nature loss, and pollution to unsustainable consumption by people living in wealthy and emerging economies.
It warns of a 'dire future' for millions unless there's a rapid move away from coal, oil, and gas and fossil fuel subsidies.
But at a meeting with government representatives to agree to the findings, the US and allies said they could not go along with a summary of the report's conclusions.
As the scientists were unwilling to water down or change their findings, the report has now been published without the summary and without the support of governments, weakening its impact.
Researchers say the objections to this new report reflect similar concerns expressed by countries at the recent COP30 talks.
Issued every six or seven years, the Global Environment Outlook is a significant scientific analysis of the major threats to the planet.
Developed under the auspices of the UN, the usual practice is to have key conclusions and recommendations agreed upon word by word with governments and published as a 'summary for policymakers'.
However, due to disagreements, this new version lacks this type of summary, as authors and political representatives from approximately 70 countries could not reach an agreement during a 'stormy' meeting in Nairobi in October.
Compiled by nearly 300 scientists worldwide, the report argues that the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the energy we consume all involve resource extraction in a highly unsustainable manner.
To tackle the interconnected issues of climate change, pollution, nature, and biodiversity loss, the report recommends a swift transition away from coal, oil, and gas, along with a significant reduction in subsidies for farming and fossil fuels. The authors acknowledge this may lead to short-term price increases but argue that it is a necessary long-term solution for global benefits.
However, these strong measures were deemed excessive by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia during the approval meeting, which typically operates by consensus.
Prof Sir Robert Watson, the report's co-chair and a renowned scientist, expressed discontent at the conduct of the meeting: 'A small number of countries basically just hijacked the process.' He noted that the US joined the discussion late via teleconference and rejected the majority of what the report presented about climate change and fossil fuels.
This disagreement raises significant concerns about future climate negotiations and the validity of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, which are essential for global efforts in combating climate change.
