The preparatory work for the thirty-first United Nations World Climate Conference – Cop31, to be held in Antalya, Turkey, this coming November – took place in Bonn from 8 to 18 June. Ten days of particularly complex negotiations, during which numerous nations (dozens of developing countries, European Union member states and Switzerland) could not avoid openly expressing their concern. And this time, not only over the lack of progress in negotiations on how to mitigate and adapt to climate change, to which recent Cops have already accustomed us. What is causing alarm is something unprecedented: an open, no longer hushed attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on the causes of and solutions to the crisis.

Earth Negotiations Bulletin @IISD_ENB

𝕏

The #JuneClimateMeetings were beset by unprecedented levels of complexity, procedural disputes, and geopolitical divisions as countries sought to assert their political and socioeconomic interests more vigorously

ENB summary ➡️ enb.iisd.org/bonn-climate-c…

#climate #cop31türkiye

♥ 6 21 giu 2026 · Apri su X →

Fiji's head of delegation: "Powerful interests seeking to protect their wealth"

During the proceedings in Germany, participants were forced to contend with "powerful interests desperately seeking to protect their wealth and influence", stated bluntly Fiji's head of delegation, Sivendra Michael. So much so that the envoy of the island nation, along with others, wore T-shirts bearing the slogan "Science is not negotiable".

Michael went even further: "We have seen some countries hold the negotiating process hostage", with no thought for "the vulnerable populations suffering from heat stress, flooding, storms, drought and hunger".

A decidedly negative signal, particularly given that Cop30 in Belém ended in yet another disappointment and hopes are pinned on the next conference to at least partially change course. The "pre-Cop" proceedings are crucial to the smooth running of the autumn conferences: it is in Bonn that rough edges are smoothed over and the groundwork is laid to avoid deadlock situations.

Proposals to remove references to the IPCC and to 1.5 degrees

Mankeet Dhaka, representing the group of 44 least developed countries, denounced to AFP what he described as "coordinated attacks across all the rooms where negotiations took place", orchestrated by a small but powerful group "of those who defend the interests of coal, oil and gas".

To understand concretely just how far the delegations seeking to obstruct negotiations have gone, it is enough to consider that attempts were made to remove references to the work of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: the most authoritative scientific body on the subject, made up of climatologists, glaciologists, physicists, meteorologists, economists and sociologists. Or, again, proposals were put forward to remove the reference to the need to limit the rise in average global temperature to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Anti-scientific arguments enter climate negotiations

All proposals firmly rejected by the head of delegation of the Aosis group, which represents small island nations, Anne Rasmussen: "I am extremely concerned about these attempts to call into question the best scientific data available to us. We need to stop playing cat and mouse."

Carbon Brief ✓ @CarbonBrief

𝕏

Bonn climate talks: Key outcomes from the June 2026 UN climate conference | @Josh_Gabbatiss @MollyLempriere

Read here: buff.ly/uLCxTxN

♥ 4 23 giu 2026 · Apri su X →

Enormous steps backwards from a political standpoint, then, most likely facilitated by the fact that certain anti-scientific arguments have been "normalised" by some governments, starting with that of the United States under Donald Trump. A few examples: as reported by the independent Earth Negotiations Bulletin, produced by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), whose members are able to attend the discussions, Saudi Arabia opposed any wording that included the risks associated with the emergence of the climate phenomenon known as El Niño.

The EU forced to call for "defending climate science"

India then proposed eliminating all references to "irreversible changes", calling into question the very concept of tipping points, which enjoys near-unanimous support in the scientific community. The same two nations, together with China, also requested that the IPCC postpone by one year (to 2029) the publication of its next climate assessment report. The idea drew opposition from, among others, the European Union, whose representative Demetris Psyllides felt compelled to issue an appeal "to all parties to defend science and promote accurate information".

In conclusion, as reported by the non-governmental organisation Carbon Brief, on both the macro-themes of adaptation and mitigation, "the Bonn meeting ended in deadlock". With "divisions between developed and developing countries over financing and scientific research having hampered progress in key areas, leaving a sense of disappointment and a great deal of work still to be done ahead of COP31".