UN environment report ‘hijacked’ by fossil fuels

A major United Nations report on the state of the global environment has been “hijacked” by the United States and other countries unwilling to accept scientific findings, the co-chairs told the BBC.

The Global Environment Outlook is the result of six years of work, linking climate change, nature loss and pollution to unsustainable consumption by people living in rich countries and emerging economies.

It warned that unless subsidies for coal, oil, gas and fossil fuels were quickly scrapped, millions of people faced a “terrifying future”.

But in a meeting with government representatives to agree on the findings, the United States and its allies said they could not agree to a summary of the report’s conclusions.

With scientists unwilling to downplay or change their findings, the report is now being published without an abstract and government support, diluting its impact.

Researchers say opposition to the new report reflects similar concerns expressed by countries at the recent COP30 talks.

The BBC has contacted relevant US government departments for comment.

Published every six to seven years, the Global Environmental Outlook is an important scientific analysis of the major threats to the planet.

It is normal practice for such studies conducted under the auspices of the United Nations to have key findings and recommendations aligned verbatim with national governments and published as a “summary for policymakers”.

The summaries are considered crucial because they show the government agrees with the science and is prepared to put the findings into action.

But the new version of the Global Environment Outlook does not include this type of summary, after the authors and political representatives from around 70 countries failed to reach an agreement at a “heated” meeting in Nairobi in October.

The report, written by nearly 300 scientists from around the world, concludes that the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the energy we consume all involve the extraction of resources in a highly unsustainable way.

To address issues related to climate change, pollution, nature and biodiversity loss, the report makes a number of recommendations, including a rapid transition away from coal, oil and gas and significant reductions in subsidies for agriculture and fossil fuels.

The authors acknowledge that such actions would drive up prices for consumers.

But the short-term pain will lead to long-term economic benefits for the world, the report said.

These strong measures, especially those targeting fossil fuels and plastics, were too much for countries such as the United States, Saudi Arabia and Russia to handle at ratification meetings, which typically proceed by consensus.

“To be honest, a handful of countries have basically just hijacked the process,” professor Sir Robert Watson told BBC News.

“The United States decided not to attend the meeting at all. They ended up attending the meeting via teleconference and basically issued a statement that they disagreed with much of the report, which meant they disagreed with anything we said on climate change, biodiversity, fossil fuels, plastics and subsidies.”

Sir Robert is one of the world’s most respected voices on science. He is the former chief scientist at the UK Department for the Environment, has also chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and worked at the World Bank and NASA.

However, he has feuded with the United States in the past, criticizing its decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, an earlier climate treaty, during his tenure as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He was removed from office in 2002 following lobbying from the administration of President George W. Bush.

Others at the meeting agreed that actions by the United States and other countries had “undermined” the process.

Dr David Broadstock of Lantau Group, one of the report’s lead authors, said: “I think we’ve moved beyond recognizing that when you burn oil you get this big, thick black stuff that comes out and that’s probably not good, especially if you’re trying to inhale it.”

“It’s quite obvious, but we’re still seeing a desire to scale up production of these types of products,” he told BBC News.

Since taking office, President Trump has sought to increase fossil fuel production and roll back U.S. commitments to combat climate change, calling for the U.S. to become a global energy superpower with cheap and reliable resources.

He is also trying to get a U.S. court to overturn the view that carbon dioxide poses a threat to public health. His administration has also taken follow-up actions to limit or limit the efforts of international agencies to combat climate change.

Since this year, we have made efforts in the following areas international plastics negotiations,exist International Maritime Organization and period COP 30 Remove language that claims climate change is a major problem and calls for the world to quickly transition away from fossil fuels.

The disagreement over the Global Environment Outlook report will raise concerns about future negotiations on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, as the studies are seen as a cornerstone of global efforts to limit global warming.