It’s long been evident for anyone with eyes to see that the United Nations’ Conferences of the Parties (COPs) are a failure in their own terms. The first was held in 1995 in Berlin. According to the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) global CO2 emissions were around 24 Gigatonnes back then. Now that we have had 30 COPs, EDGAR tells us:

According to the latest data, global GHG emissions in 2024 reached 53.2 Gt CO2eq…The 2024 data experienced an increase of 1.3% or 665 Mt CO2eq compared to the levels in 2023….Fossil CO2 emissions, which are the main contributors to global GHG emissions are still increasing at world level despite climate change mitigation agreements.….

According to Our World in Data 13.9% of global energy demand was supplied by “low-carbon” sources in 1995, a share which had increased to 18.7% by 2024. The problem is, that’s a 4.8% increase in its share of the cake, but the size of the cake has increased massively over the last 30 years. Thus, fossil fuel use (and associated greenhouse gas emissions) have increased massively while the COP attendees have been chattering away. For instance, in 1995, oil supplied 39,666 Twh, but 55,292 TWh in 2024. Similarly, coal supplied 25,999 TWh, but in 2024 it had increased to 45,851TWh. Gas supplied 21,104 Twh in 1995, but by 2024 that had increased to 41,278 Twh. Every year since 1995, the individual fuel use that increased most year-on-year has been one of the fossil fuels (oil, coal or gas), with the exceptions only of 2009 (financial crash) and 2020 (covid). As an aside, although correlation isn’t necessarily causation, it’s worth pausing for a moment to note that renewables have led the way only in years when the global economy has tanked. In any event, it seems fair to say that the COPs aren’t achieving much, if anything.

And so there have been a plethora of stories at the websites of the BBC and the Guardian over the last few days regarding a group of countries who have recognised this, and who have consequently decided to have talks separate from the COP process. To anyone who has studied a bit of history, it’s starting to look like the years when there were two Popes (though of course there was also the fascinating period when it was decided to solve the problem by electing a compromise Pope, only to find that the other two refused to give up their claims, so for a while, commencing in 1409, there were three Popes). But I digress. Let’s return to the BBC. It leads with an article titled “First ever talks to ditch fossil fuels as UN deadlock deepens”. That seems an odd choice of title, given that many of the recent COPs have talked about reducing fossil fuel use (I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, and accept that “reducing” is not the same as “ditching”). Odder still, perhaps is the BBC’s choice of accompanying photograph – it’s of those cult-like figures dressed all in red, with chalk-white faces. Is the BBC trying to say that the breakaway countries setting up the talks are like the weird protestors? Who knows?

Meanwhile, the Guardian – in for a penny in for a pound – has three articles. First, “Colombia convenes climate ‘coalition of the willing’ to break global fossil fuel deadlock – Santa Marta conference born out of frustration at Cop summits, where renewable progress has been stalled by major polluters”. Then “How frustration at Cop stalemates inspires first global talks on phasing out fossil fuels – ‘Coalition of the willing’ gathers in Colombia to try to bypass petrostate blockages of Cop summits and chart fresh path”. Also “New global panel aims to accelerate move away from fossil fuels – Scientists and economists will help countries develop plans to reduce dependence on oil, gas and coal”. It’s obvious, isn’t it? If one talking shop hasn’t worked after 30 years – set up another one!

The Guardian articles contain some odd statements, such as this from the first one: “For the first time, the countries that want to forge ahead with the energy transition cannot be held back by the naysayers”. But the naysayers have never been able to hold back any country that wants to “forge ahead with the energy transition”. If you want to get on with it, just do so. You don’t need the permission of the rest of the world.

54 countries (though see below) have signed up, apparently, including (naturally) the UK and the EU. Of the rest, major fossil fuel producers to attend include Colombia (a co-host), Nigeria, Angola, Mexico and Brazil. Notably, the US, China, India, Russia and the Gulf petro states, will be missing.

Of those attending, no doubt the UK (at least while its energy policy is dictated by Starmer and Miliband) is sincere in signing up to the aims of this breakaway group. Weirdest, perhaps, is the decision of Colombia to be a co-host. Colombia ranks 24^th in the world in oil production, and petroleum represents more than 45% of its total exports. Yet it has banned granting new exploration licences for coal, oil and gas, and has banned fracking. The Guardian tells us that instead, it is to focus more on tourism and boost agriculture. How you boost tourism while frowning on fossil fuel use, when many tourists from the wealthier countries will have to fly thousands of miles to get there is a bit of a mystery. And good luck with boosting agriculture without using fertilisers that derive from fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, again according to the Guardian, some of the participants, including Norway, Mexico and Nigeria, are planning to expand fossil fuel production in response to the Iran war.

The second Guardian article tells us:

Fossil fuel producers will take centre stage. Vélez, one of whose previous jobs was minister of mines for Colombia, which is a big coal and oil exporter, said: “The first [priority for the conference] is: how can we be less economically dependent on the production of fossil fuels.” Finance for developing countries to switch, and debt relief, will be significant aspects of the discussion. Fossil fuel demand will also be addressed.

Finance, eh? Isn’t that the issue that usually derails COPs? And without the likes of the USA in attendance (traditionally, it has been expected to dig deepest to fund COP outcomes) isn’t this going to be an even bigger stumbling block than at the 30 COPs to date?

The third Guardian article tells us that there is to be a new panel of experts, based partly on the UK’s Climate Change Committee, providing “roadmaps” and “milestones” along the way “for eliminating fossil fuels in line with scenarios that return global heating to 1.5C by the end of the century.” We aren’t told how countries representing a minority of fossil fuel users and producers will “return global heating to 1.5C by the end of the century” in the absence of the big producers and users of fossil fuels. The idea, apparently, is that the presence of a third of the world’s countries at the Santa Marta conference will help keep the transition from fossil fuels on the global agenda and demonstrate how it can be achieved. I struggle to see how this is any different from the COP process, save to the extent that the countries which usually stymie progress at COPs will instead be staying away and thus. by their very failure to participate, wll ensure the same effective outcome.

The BBC article doesn’t tell us very much more, though it claims that “around 60 nations” will be in attendance. Is that a rounding-up of 54? Neither the BBC nor the Guardian supply a list of those nations, nor a link to enable interested readers to discover who they are. So I thought I’d take a look. Which countries are signed up? If AI is to be believed, the list actually extends to well over 70 countries, though with all due respect to them, some are pretty inconsequential in the scheme of things – at least insofar as anything they do will make virtually no difference to fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions. AI sets out the list as follows:

Organising Hosts: Colombia and the Netherlands.

Americas: Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas,Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guyana Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Uruguay.

Europe & EU: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.

Asia-Pacific: Australia, Turkey, Bangladesh, Fiji, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Vietnam.

Africa: Angola, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Uganda.

Others: Vatican City (Holy See).

Colombia’s game plan is a bit of a mystery. Most of the others are the usual suspects – either EU countries making the right noises, or very poor and small nations hoping the process will result in them receiving money. What of the few fossil fuel producers whose presence is intriguing? Well, Brazil has plans to increase fossil fuel production, and plans to be a top 4 global oil producer by 2030. My AI friend puts it rather well:

Brazil is navigating a contradictory trajectory: pursuing aggressive renewable energy growth while simultaneously expanding oil and gas production to become a top-four global oil producer by 2030. While aiming for a green transition and leading global climate talks, the nation’s domestic fossil fuel reliance is expected to continue for decades, with oil production projected to peak in 2030 and gas in 2045.

Canada (AI again):

Canada’s fossil fuel trajectory is characterized by a “dual-track” approach: ambitious, legislated net-zero emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, contrasted with continued, near-record high production and development of oil and gas, leading to “Highly Insufficient” ratings from climate trackers.

So, not much chance of them ditching fossil fuels any time soon.

Australia (what did I do without AI’s helpful summaries?):

Australia’s fossil fuel trajectory is characterized by a “dual path”:aggressively expanding gas and coal exports while domestically pursuing rapid renewable energy adoption to reach net zero by 2050.

Mexico (AI’s summary is scathing):

Mexico is at a crossroads, balancing a stated ambition for net-zero emissions by 2050 with a short-term trajectory that heavily favors fossil fuel expansion, primarily through increased natural gas usage and state-led oil production. While renewable energy potential is high, current policy prioritizes energy sovereignty, causing a “carbon lock-in” risk despite setting a 2035 NDC goal to reduce emissions.

Contradictory Policy: While aiming for 50% clean energy by 2050, the 2025–2030 National Development Plan prioritizes strengthening state-owned Pemex (oil) and CFE (electricity) to boost fossil fuel production and energy security.

Fossil gas reliance: Natural gas is the dominant fuel in the power sector (accounting for ~60% of generation in 2024), and this dependency is expected to grow, with capacity for gas-fired power plants increasing through 2039.

New Administration Strategy (2025-2030): President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration, while including cleaner goals, continues to focus on bolstering state-run oil exploration and opening new infrastructure like the Olmeca refinery.

Slowed renewable growth: Annual wind and solar deployment dropped significantly from over 4.8 GW in 2019 to roughly 1.1–1.6 GW in 2023-2024, partly due to policy shifts prioritizing state-owned generation over private investment.

“Clean” Fossil Fuel Definition: Mexico defines certain gas-fired projects as “clean energy” under local law, which dilutes its renewable transition targets.

Emissions Trend: Due to the continued reliance on fossil fuels, Mexico’s GHG emissions are projected to increase through 2030, contradicting a 1.5°C-compatible pathway.

I wonder why they’re even bothering to show up?

Norway:

Norway is navigating a dual-track strategy, combining aggressive domestic green initiatives with continued,, high-level oil and gas production for export. While aiming for a 70–75% emission reduction by 2035 (compared to 1990), the country remains a major supplier to Europe, with investments in new petroleum projects expected to remain high through 2025.

Nigeria (so AI tells me, though even the Guardian acknowledges it) is pursuing a contradictory “double-track” fossil fuel trajectory through to 2030, aiming to simultaneously increase oil and gas production while committing to net-zero by 2060. Despite climate goals, Nigeria is expanding fossil gas as a “transition fuel” to power the economy, with plans to boost gas production by 75% by 2030 and double oil output.

So many dual-track/double-track strategies on view! I don’t see much evidence of ditching fossil fuels among these countries. Having said that, Angola’s production of oil seems to be in long-term decline from a peak in 2008, but it is still heavily dependent on oil and gas exports, and their production represents around 30-35% of Angola’s GDP, with their export providing around 60% of its revenue. A cynic might wonder if their presence is driven by a desire to seek out “just transition” funding, since the COP process has let them down.

Cameroon has substantial natural gas reserves, and is highly dependent on oil. Its NDC is less than impressive, having pledged only to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by 32% compared to a business-as-usual scenario by 2035.

Senegal is navigating a “hybrid” energy trajectory, combining a push to become a significant oil and gas producer (aiming for major production by 2026-2027) with simultaneous investment in renewable energy. While aiming for 40% renewable electricity by 2030, the nation is accelerating fossil fuel exploitation via gas-to-power strategies to boost energy access and economic growth.

Sierra Leone’s fossil fuel trajectory is characterized by a high dependency on imported heavy fuel oil (HFO) and diesel for electricity (roughly 30%–60% of supply) alongside an ambitious, yet underfunded, plan to reach 85% renewable energy capacity by 2030. While transitioning to renewables, oil-based power currently bridges generation gaps, though recent explorations suggest potential future domestic oil production.

And that’s about it. As noted above, the USA, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Gulf Oil States, Russia et al are notable by their absence. It looks as though this will be another talking shop. I wonder when the world and the activists will notice that it is achieving no more than the traditional COP process? When that happens, will we see another breakaway group, the modern-day equivalent of a third Pope?