A flagship United Nations (UN) report on the state of the global environment, the Global Environment Outlook-7 (GEO), titled “A Future We Choose,” has been published without the crucial government-approved Summary for Policymakers. The report was allegedly derailed by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other nations.
The GEO, the culmination of six years of work by nearly 300 scientists, connects climate change, nature loss, and pollution directly to unsustainable consumption patterns, particularly in wealthy and emerging economies. It warns of a dire future for millions unless there is a rapid move away from coal, oil, and gas, and a massive reduction in fossil fuel subsidies.
Political deadlock in Nairobi:
During a high-level meeting in Nairobi with government representatives to approve the findings, a political summary could not be reached. The US, which reportedly chose not to attend the bulk of the meeting, joined by teleconference at the end to state its fundamental opposition to most of the report’s conclusions—specifically those concerning climate change, fossil fuels, plastics, and subsidies.
Weakened impact and scientific integrity:
The absence of a politically negotiated summary is significant. Such summaries are considered critical because they signal that governments agree with the science and are prepared to translate the findings into actionable policy.
The UN Global Environment Outlook 7 (GEO-7) report is the most comprehensive assessment of its kind. Its recommendations center on radical, systemic transformation to prevent an economic and environmental collapse.
Key recommendations:
The report argues that the world is on a trajectory that will bring catastrophic climate change, but that a sustainable pathway is still possible through a complete overhaul of global systems.
The study argues that while a rapid transition away from fossil fuels will involve short-term pain—such as higher consumer prices—the long-term economic and social benefits, estimated to be worth trillions of dollars in averted costs, far outweigh the initial investment.
A) Economic and Financial Reforms:
• Remove Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The report urgently calls for the elimination or repurposing of the approximately $1.5 trillion in environmentally harmful subsidies to fossil fuels, food, and mining, noting this action alone could cut emissions by a third.
• Price Externalities: It stresses the need to price pollution and other “negative externalities” so that the true costs of environmental damage—such as the $45 trillion per year caused by the burning of coal, oil, and gas—are reflected in consumer prices.
B) Shift Metrics from GDP:
Governments must move away from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the sole metric of success and adopt broader “inclusive wealth” metrics that track human and natural capital (e.g., clean air, healthy soils).
• Fund Transition: Public and private finance must be redirected to clean energy, ecosystem restoration, and resilient infrastructure.
C) Systemic Transformations:
• Energy: Rapid decarbonization of power and fuels, coupled with major gains in efficiency, and an explicit focus on ensuring energy access for the poor. The call is for a total transformation of our energy system.
• Food Systems: A pivot towards healthy and sustainable diets, more efficient and resilient food production, and a massive reduction in food loss and waste. This includes recommendations for taxes on meat and subsidies for healthy, plant-based foods.
• Social Safety Nets: To make the necessary price increases socially and politically acceptable, the report recommends social protection tools, such as a universal basic income, to safeguard the most vulnerable communities.
The report has now been released without this political endorsement, substantially weakening its intended impact on policy decisions worldwide. The scientists, however, refused to water down or change their findings, choosing to publish the full scientific analysis to maintain its integrity.
The authors stress that the economic argument for action is overwhelming.
“While there are up-front costs [to addressing these crises], the economic cost of inaction is much higher.” — GEO-7 Report Summary
Dr. David Broadstock, one of the lead authors, noted that the objections mirror a growing trend seen in recent negotiations, including at the COP30 climate talks, where efforts to push for a fossil fuel phase-out have faced strong, coordinated resistance.
