UN remains only legitimate climate forum

Academics, like the University of Melbourne’s Robyn Eckersley have also called for the creation of a ‘Climate Council’ under the existing UN framework of between eight and twenty states representing the most vulnerable, the most capable and the most responsible powers.

Both of these structures have the potential to catalyse the UN process from within.

We must recognise that the UN is the best system we have to find solutions to the climate crisis. Unlike its alternatives, it is the universally agreed upon system to address climate change.

This is why it was established in 1992.

Other forums and bilateral agreements do have an important role to play. But unlike the UN, they do not provide universal international representation.

Nor do they have universal support or global participation, which is essential to fight climate change.

The UN has successfully introduced the Kyoto Protocol, Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism, and has agreed to a Climate Technology Centre.

Durban added to these successes by extending the Kyoto Protocol, establishing the Green Climate Fund, recognising the “emissions gapâ€, and agreeing to a legally binding agreement for both developed and developing countries by 2015.

These outcomes provide clear evidence of the effectiveness of the UN, and would not have been possible without its universal representation.

At the end of the day, any failings then lie with the individual nations who fail to ratify or actively participate. Not the UN.

The UN climate regime has stood the test of time for twenty years. Now is not to time to abandon it.

Now is the time to invest in the UN.