UN’s climate crisis vote shows political momentum is growing, say experts | Climate crisis
As the UN general assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of a landmark resolution on the climate crisis on Wednesday, the prime minister of the Pacific island of Vanuatu hailed the result as the start of a “new chapter” in climate action.
“The challenge for all of us is to translate legal clarity into meaningful action, stronger cooperation and greater protection for current and future generations,” said Jotham Napat.
Recognizing that states have a legal responsibility to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including by tackling fossil fuels, could provide a boost for climate diplomacy and litigation, experts say.
Although the 2025 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was hailed at the time as a “historic win” for small island states that are particularly vulnerable to the effects of the climate crisis, so far It turned out to be weak as a diplomatic lever.
To help make a difference on the ground, Vanuatu led negotiations on a new UN resolution, a lengthy process that required numerous concessions.
latest versionCo-sponsored by 90 countries, it calls on states to transition away from fossil fuels in a “fair, orderly and equitable manner” to reach net zero by 2050 and to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or respond to just transitions as quickly as possible.”
However, the decision does not explicitly attribute responsibility to any state.
Although the final decision did not achieve the unanimity Vanuatu sought, 141 countries voted in favor with 28 abstentions. Eight countries, including the world’s largest oil and gas producers, voted against it: the United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Belarus, Iran, Israel, Yemen and Liberia.
The advisory opinion has so far been more domestically effective than diplomatic. Harj Narulla, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers in London and the Solomon Islands’ lawyer during the ICJ hearings, said this had already been proven. converter for local cases. “This decision won’t change that, but it does put a lot of political weight behind the views that judges take into consideration even if they can’t make them public.”
It could also support local lawmakers trying to pass new laws and set climate goals. “One of the key areas where we are seeing the adoption of the legal conclusions of the National Court of Justice is in nationally determined contributions,” said Joie Chowdhury, director of climate justice and accountability at the Center for International Environmental Law. “The decision could further encourage national climate plans to integrate advisory opinion findings.”
But Narulla said the new decision will likely have the biggest impact on climate diplomacy. “The international community is showing that Polis is not the only forum that matters and that if progress stalls there, climate action will be pursued through the general assembly and in other multilateral arenas.”
Rebecca Newsom, Greenpeace International’s global political leader, said after last month’s fossil fuel phase-out conference in Santa Marta, Colombia, that the timing of the vote and the impact of the energy crisis on the fossil fuel industry showed “political momentum is clearly building.”
“Governments now need to translate this decision into concrete roadmaps to equitably phase out fossil fuel exploitation, production, and consumption,” Newsom said.
Tuvalu will host a meeting of world leaders in October ahead of the COP31 global climate talks in Türkiye next month. It has also agreed to host the second fossil fuel phase-out conference early next year.
Meanwhile, the world’s largest oil and gas producers dispute any claim that they have a legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the United States reportedly Lobbyed for the full withdrawal of the UN resolution. Before the vote, US ambassador Tammy Bruce criticized the text for “giving certain groups preferential treatment” and making “alarming political statements, such as the idea that climate change is an unprecedented challenge on the scale of civilization.”
Narulla said those votes against did not meaningfully weaken the resolution. “At this point, we expect major fossil fuel producers such as the United States and Saudi Arabia to oppose any meaningful diplomatic progress on climate change. What is impressive is that such an overwhelming majority has emerged beyond this small group, including many states that are entirely dependent on fossil fuels.”
It is worth noting that very few states have yet announced specific policies as a result of the advisory opinion and are even trying to gain approval from some of those who voted in favor of the decision. Australia’s UN Ambassador James Larsen said “states continue to have different views on the scope and content of some of these obligations”.
Some aspects of the decision were less controversial; including the recognition that nations must protect their states and maritime borders even if their territory disappears under water.
