On August 14, a weary UN representative walked into the main venue after long discussions and little sleep, witnessing the fading hopes for a global treaty on plastic pollution.

The two-week conference in Geneva, Switzerland, marked his second attempt to create international regulations to tackle this pressing issue.

However, just before a resolution, disagreements emerged over whether the treaty should contain provisions for boosting recycling rates, as well as targets to decrease plastic production at its source.

Oil Production Status – As demand for gasoline and diesel diminishes, the reliance on the plastics industry for revenue complicates efforts to reduce production.

The treaty required unanimous consent to be enacted, but some states stood firm on their “red lines,” leading to a breakdown in talks.

Does this scenario ring a bell? The Environmental Summit often experiences the collapse of protracted negotiations, lengthy discussions, and debates. Even when agreements are reached, consultations typically yield minimal concrete outcomes, a pattern seen during the 2023 COP28 Summit in Dubai.

A significant challenge lies in the longstanding expectation of unanimous agreement, as noted by Robert Faulkner from the London School of Economics. He explains that the United Nations has initiated discussions related to climate change and biodiversity, which requires consensus from hundreds of countries with diverse economic and political contexts.

“The consensus approach in international environmental negotiations has consistently been the Achilles’ heel of the United Nations’ environmental efforts,” states Faulkner. “This often results in compromises that reflect the lowest common denominator.”

Activists and strategists are growing weary from a series of stagnant climate summits, with slowed progress in efforts to halt biodiversity loss. In light of the recent crisis in Geneva, there’s increasing skepticism regarding the environmental diplomatic process.

“Why do we believe that environmental challenges can only be addressed through multilateralism and consensus among over 190 countries? That approach seems ineffective,” says Simon Sharp, a former British diplomat and author of Five Times Faster: Rethinking the Science, Economics, and Diplomacy of Climate Change.

More activists and strategists are seeking alternative strategies. Sharp, who played a role in organizing the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow, UK, emphasizes the need to prioritize action over targets and to rally influential countries to expedite decarbonization by sector. “If you want meaningful change, you must take action,” he asserts.

Eirik Lindebjerg, from the WWF Campaign Group, echoes a similar sentiment in Norway. “If 100 countries agree to implement measures to phase out fossil fuel vehicles, even without participation from other nations, it can still yield significant climate benefits,” he argues. “To me, there is a compelling case to move beyond the consensus mindset.”

This approach draws inspiration from positive “turning points” aimed at steering the world toward rapid decarbonization in various sectors, such as transportation and electricity.

Tim Renton, an author and academic at the University of Exeter, UK, argues in his upcoming book Positive Turning Points: How to Fix the Climate Crisis that collaboration among smaller groups of countries could prove more effective than relying solely on consensus-based negotiations.

“The essence of a tipping point is that a minority can ultimately sway the majority,” he explains. “Thus, it is illogical to restrict progress by demanding universal agreement before any actions are taken.”

Of course, this strategy hinges on engaging the most influential countries (those with economies capable of pushing these turning points). Given the unpredictability of US leadership under Donald Trump, this remains uncertain.

Yet, there are indications that this way of thinking is gaining traction within diplomatic circles. For instance, the Brazilian hosts of the forthcoming COP30 Climate Summit are contemplating a reorganization of frameworks that could enable the new UN Council for Climate Change to enact majority votes and facilitate direct, sector-specific collaboration among nations. Simultaneously, many observers are viewing China’s increasing engagement in climate matters as an opportunity for them to take a leadership role on specific issues like renewable energy and electric vehicles.

When progress in environmental policy is predominantly driven by small groups of nations, one must question the relevance of large agreements like climate summits. Events of this nature can aid in “norm-setting,” remarks Sharp, facilitating recognition of ongoing transitions, such as the global shift away from coal reliance. However, they shouldn’t be expected to lead the charge for change, he cautions.

There is no denying that decades-long efforts have been instrumental in fostering international consensus on environmental strategies. Nevertheless, consensus-driven negotiations can move at the pace of the slowest participants in the dialogue. As the world confronts a multifaceted crisis involving climate change, biodiversity, and pollution, it may be time to reconsider such an approach.