The air in Bonn was thick with technical jargon, procedural wrangling—and the unmistakable scent of stagnation. The 62nd session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) of the UNFCCC, which serves as a critical step toward COP30 in Belém, Brazil, concluded on June 26. The only thing truly heating up during the ten-day meet was the planet outside the conference halls.

Held in the shadow of shattered global temperature records—and amid the geopolitical cacophony of the simultaneous G7 summit in Canada—the Bonn climate talks offered a masterclass in incrementalism, even as the world cries out for revolution. This was not just a meeting; it was a stark diagnosis of a system in decline.

This assessment does not stem from pessimism, but from lived experience. As a former UN expert who spent over 20 years implementing the Montreal Protocol—a rare success in international environmental diplomacy—and witnessing 30 years of inertia on climate action, I offer this critique with a heavy heart. The result? Optimism lost in a jungle of hypocritical huddles, decoratively termed "negotiations."

Bonn’s Rumblings: Anatomy of Inaction

Reviewing SB62’s outcomes is like examining the anatomy of inaction. Let’s begin with climate finance—the engine of climate action—which continues to sputter. Developed and developing countries remain deadlocked over the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), the next step after the largely unmet $100 billion/year promise.

Though technical work progressed, the chasm between demands (grants-based trillions) and offers (modest billions, often as loans) widened. In today’s world of tariff wars and strategic control over rare-earths, the $300 billion pledged at COP29 in Baku now risks being drowned out by the din of drones and bombers.

Discussions on operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund crawled along, bogged down by governance and access issues, even as vulnerable nations burn and flood.

Work on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) felt like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Current NDCs have the world on track for a disastrous 3.5°C rise, far beyond the Paris Agreement’s 1.5–2.0°C limit. The earlier deadline of February 2025 for submitting revised NDCs saw a 95% non-compliance rate. The deadline is now extended to September 2025.

Despite overwhelming evidence of accelerating climate impacts, negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) moved at a glacial pace. Agreement on metrics, tracking mechanisms, and linking adaptation finance to local needs remained elusive. Adaptation continues to be the politically neglected and chronically underfunded cousin of mitigation.

Some optimism shone through in negotiations on carbon markets (Article 6), but many fear they are mired in quicksand. Environmental integrity and human rights concerns loom large. Without robust safeguards, these mechanisms risk becoming loopholes rather than solutions. Consider the alarming trend of indiscriminate tree cutting to plant new trees for carbon credits—governance failure in plain sight.

The UNFCCC’s own statements tried to spin the talks as "technical progress," but the subtext was clear: the political will for transformation was conspicuously missing. As many media outlets noted, the “prevailing geopolitical wars,” the redirection of resources, trade friction, and a leadership vacuum have undermined the very fabric of global climate cooperation.

The Kananaskis Hypocrisy: Guns Over Green

Running parallel to SB62, the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, perfectly illustrated the hypocrisy of rich nations. While expressing "alarm" over climate change and reaffirming net-zero goals, G7 leaders prioritized massive hikes in defense spending—from 2% to nearly 5% of GDP, increasing total spending from $485 billion to over $1 trillion.

The climate section of the so-called Kananaskis Declaration was clearly overshadowed by security rhetoric. In effect, climate security was relegated to the ashes of literal wildfires. The message was unambiguous: climate remains, at best, a footnote.

BRICS: A Disruptive Force on the Horizon?

As SB62 delegates departed Bonn, BRICS began to enter the spotlight. The grouping’s recent statements—emphasizing climate justice, "common but differentiated responsibilities with respective capabilities" (CBDR-RC), and accessible, scaled-up finance—resonated deeply with the frustrations voiced in Bonn. Their critique of Western-dominated financial institutions and their call for a multipolar world order offer a possible challenge to the current gridlock.

Looking ahead to COP30 in Belém, deep in the Amazon and hosted by a BRICS member, the bloc’s role is pivotal. Brazilian President Lula has already shown leadership by reducing deforestation and pledging a 53% emissions cut by 2030 compared to 2005. He aims to eliminate deforestation entirely by 2030, even while facing pressures from Brazil’s oil sector.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has exceeded India’s NDCs and pledged net-zero by 2070. Chinese President Xi Jinping has pledged net-zero by 2060 and leads the world in renewable energy capacity. Modi has even reframed BRICS as "Building Resilience and Innovation for Cooperation and Sustainability."

Can BRICS Break the Climate Blockade?

Mobilize Alternative Finance?
Can BRICS go beyond rhetoric to build substantial, accessible finance mechanisms for the Global South—demonstrating that while G7 obsesses over national security, BRICS champions climate security?

Drive Collective Ambition?
Will major BRICS emitters like China, India, and Russia enhance their own NDCs and prove that developing countries can lead, not just demand?

Champion Systemic Change?
Will BRICS push for reform in global climate finance architecture and demand accountability at COP30? The bloc could be a counterweight to the failed model of voluntary pledges, and a true agent for a "just transition"—faster, further, fairer.

But potential is not action. BRICS must back its vision with enforcement mechanisms—what I call a Framework of Force. Without it, the slogans will melt with the ice caps.

Time for a Climate Enforcement Framework?

The Achilles’ heel of international law is enforcement. Yet we must ask: what are the consequences of defaulting on climate pledges?

Tools for enforcement could include:

• Financial penalties directed to the Loss and Damage Fund

• Sanctioned trade restrictions (a contentious but potent lever)

• Publicized rulings of non-compliance

• Suspension from carbon markets and climate finance access

Yes, sovereignty concerns, Security Council vetoes, and legal quagmires abound. But can we afford another 30 years of voluntary failure? There is no Planet B—but there can be a Process B. Bonn sidestepped this question; Belém cannot.

From Bonn’s Whimper to Belém’s Roar

SB62 was not a total failure—technical groundwork was laid—but it was a profound failure of political courage and urgency. It played out while the G7 chose guns over green, and while BRICS offered a flicker of hope in a darkening horizon.

To avoid COP30 becoming a monument to failure, the tools of climate war must be deployed: binding laws, enforced finance, and punitive measures. The road from Bonn to Belém must be paved not with intentions, but with accountability, action, and audacity.

BRICS has the potential—and perhaps the will. Ahead of COP30, it should convene a high-level “Redefining Climate Summit” with other like-minded nations invited to the BRICS table. Let the world know: BRICS can indeed build the force to break the climate blockade. The clock is not ticking anymore. It’s screaming.

(The author is a noted environmentalist, former Director of UNEP, Coordinating Lead Author, IPCC 2007 (Nobel Peace Prize laureate), IIT Alumnus, and Founder, Green TERRE Foundation, Pune, India. Views are personal. He can be reached at shende.rajendra@gmail.com.)