The climate negotiation process is currently hindered by a "consensus trap" where a handful of governments can block global agreements, according to Dr. Joanna Depledge, a fellow at the Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance. Because the system requires every country to agree, nations opposed to stronger climate action can prevent the adoption of progress, even after years of negotiation.
This issue dates back to the first Conference of the Parties (COP) in Berlin in 1995. At that time, a draft rule proposed a two-thirds majority as a last resort if consensus could not be reached. However, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) opposed the proposal, arguing that substantive decisions should only be taken by consensus. The dispute was never resolved, leaving the process without an agreed voting rule for substantive decisions.
Dr. Depledge describes the failure to adopt these rules as an "act of sabotage." She argues that the current system ensures that "Whatever decision is taken can only be as strong as what the least ambitious nations are prepared to accept." She notes that US-based lobbyists with links to fossil-fuel interests, automobile companies, and conservative political organisations advised the Saudi and Kuwaiti delegations during the 1990s.
According to Dr. Depledge, the strategy for countries opposing voting rules has been to prevent agreement rather than persuade others. She describes this as a "just say no" approach, where delegations refuse proposals, delay discussions, or claim they lack the time or instructions to engage. This strategy has also involved deepening mistrust between developed and developing countries by reinforcing the perception that industrialised nations want to impose new obligations on the Global South while failing to meet their own.
While petrostates are central to this dynamic, Dr. Depledge says they have found support from larger emerging economies like China and India. These nations fear the imposition of new rules or expectations. She states that if China and India were completely opposed to their position, Saudi Arabia and others could not insist and could not obstruct.
