US fights with scientists over UN Environmental Outlook report

A major UN report on the state of the global environment has been “hijacked” by the US and other countries reluctant to follow scientific findings, its co-chairs have told the BBC.

The Global Environment Outlook, the result of six years of research, links climate change, nature loss and pollution to the unsustainable consumption of people in wealthy emerging economies.

It warns of a “deplorable future” for millions unless there is a rapid move away from coal, oil, gas and fossil fuel subsidies.

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

The reports are now published without summaries or government support, weakening their impact because scientists have been reluctant to water down or change their findings.

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

The BBC has approached the relevant US government departments for comment.

Published every six to seven years, the Global Environment Outlook is a seminal scientific analysis of the major threats to our planet.

The usual practice for studies such as these developed under the auspices of the United Nations is for the main conclusions and recommendations to be agreed verbally with the government and published in a “summary for policy makers.”

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

However, this new version of the Global Environmental Outlook does not have this type of summary. That’s because authors and political representatives from about 70 countries failed to reach an agreement at a “stormy” meeting in Nairobi in October.

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

To address issues related to climate change, pollution, and loss of nature and biodiversity, the report includes 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 this type of action will raise prices for consumers.

But such short-term pain will have long-term economic benefits for the world, the report says.

These tough measures, especially on fossil fuels and plastics, were too much for the United States, Saudi Arabia and Russia in the largely consensual approval conference.

Professor Robert Watson told BBC News: “To be honest, a small number of countries have basically hijacked the process.”

“The United States decided not to attend the meeting at all. At the end, they joined by videoconference and basically issued a statement saying they couldn’t agree with most of the report. That means they didn’t agree with anything we said about climate change, biodiversity, fossil fuels, plastics and subsidies.”

Sir Robert is one of the world’s most respected scientists. He is a former Chief Scientist at the UK Environment Department and has served as Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as working at the World Bank and NASA.

However, in the past, when he was head of the IPCC, he had a conflict with the United States when he criticized the United States’ decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, a previous climate treaty.

He was forced out of that position in 2002 due to his lobbying efforts by President George W. Bush’s administration.

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

“I think we’ve gone beyond recognition that when you burn oil, big, thick black things come up, and that can be a bad thing, especially if you try to inhale it,” said Dr David Broadstock of the Lantau Group, one of the report’s lead authors.

“Understandably, there are still parties trying to scale up production of such products,” he told BBC News.

Since taking office, President Trump has rolled back America’s commitments to increase fossil fuel production and fight climate change, calling for the country to become a global energy superpower with cheap and reliable resources.

He has also been trying to get U.S. courts to overturn the idea that carbon dioxide is a risk to public health. His government also continued its efforts to limit or limit efforts by international organizations to address warming issues.

This year, there were efforts to remove language from the international plastics negotiations, the International Maritime Organization and COP30 that climate change is a key issue requiring the world to quickly transition away from fossil fuels.

The disagreement over the Global Environmental Outlook report will raise concerns about future negotiations on the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Because these studies are considered the foundation of global efforts to limit global warming.