🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to consider it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.