Opinion by Mathew Carr

Nov. 20, 2025 — Solving a global problem like climate change under a system of 200 disperate nations was never going to be easy.

Since nearly every country is deeply embedded in the current rules of (sometimes) free-market capitalism, the challenge for environment lovers is to place a monetary value on climate and nature into that mix without hurting people’s ability to get by.

This dilemma is horrific for some environmentalists …because they quite understandably think that nature and climate should be a baseline that capitalism is not allowed to destroy.

Destroying climate and nature is losing, afterall, no matter how much money we have, some say …a notion I tend to agree with.

So, to get around the destruction, capitalism must change in a way that protects climate and nature, yet also in a malleable system that values those two things in a new way and doesn’t upset too much the 0.1% rich and powerful….and also so that it is democratic in the eyes of 8 billion people. EEK

This is especially difficult when those 0.1% are calling the shots (8 million folks out of 8 billion) and protecting their interests.

How potential digital services tariffs can give emerging nations leverage at COP30 this week (2)

During the past few hours, Turkey and Australia have agreed — tentatively it seems, to be sure — to share the responsibility of hosting next year’s climate talks.

Being Australian (and British with dual citizenship) myself, my initial reaction was: “Wow, cool collaboration between a north and south country.” (Even though Turkey is in the north and Australia is in the south and a bit of a US vassal state…you get what I mean. Perhaps, Turkey is, too, right now.)

This IS what the world needs. Inter-regional collaboration, I thought.

With US President Trump continuing to pursue US domination and China pushing back as it says it wants to return to proper multilateralism, whatever that means…the Australia-Turkey “deal” just might symbolise a better way.

Something not about dominance, but about collaboration and good governance.

Let’s go with this idea for a few minutes, even though it’s potentially naive.

And let’s cite the example of a new UN carbon market that incentivises the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the much-delayed Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism or PACM. (Article 6.4 of the Paris climate deal.)

This market has a supervisory body that now seems to be seeking to lock in its members for longer terms of service at COP30 in Brazil, instead of rotating them (see below and in the notes). That’s even though some of those members and their related people have taken a complete decade (2015-2025) to get PACM off the ground.

Clear as mud

This delay has caused the climate crisis to become much more acute, in my opinion.

The UN climate governance structure is all wrong.

Instead of having regulators deploying policy set by specialist lawmakers, the UN seems to be pushing to have lawmakers and regulators do both jobs simultaneously. That magnifies conflicts of interest.

It’s certainly not completely the fault of the supervisory body members.

Money has been drained from the UN market system, perhaps deliberately to protect cash flows in the current fossil-fuel markets, which are damaging the climate so much.

Pedro Martins Barata, a Portugal climate and carbon market expert, says new people are needed to revive urgency at UN level (I’m summarizing). Flesh blood, if you like, instead of conflicted old guard.

Martins Barata was a member of the Clean Development Mechanism executive board for four years from 2008-2011 (LinkedIn profile). That’s an earlier UN carbon market, or the parent of PACM, if you like. His opinion piece on supervising the supervisors — linked on his name, above — is definitely worth reading in its entirety. As are the accompanying comments/debate on the social media platform.

LinkedIn

Keeping the same people in the same roles “is more or less” like having congresspeople [in the US] be Securities Exchange Commissioners at the same time, he tells me.

High-quality governance would imply that those making the laws/rules don’t also implement them. Regulation is a different skill. And with AI boosting data and hiking unemployment, the world can now afford high-quality governance, surely.

The people who have been on the PACM supervisory body have largely been employed by national governments, so their interests are mixed between looking after countries’ trade money and in protecting the climate via the planned new UN GHG market. That’s tricky. That’s conflict-ridden.

“Quite a few of us have argued that the terms of methodology-panel members (a panel that sits alongside the supervisory body) should be limited, too,” said Olga Gassan-zade, who sits on the SB. “Not least because some are also UNFCCC negotiators,” she said on LinkedIn.

There should be clear separation of powers and interests, where possible, Martins Barata said.

There should be lawmakers and a different level to deploy those laws, he said. People need to be paid, he said.

The current male-dominated PACM supervisory board is unpaid (but costs are covered). Methodology panel members are paid.

Yes, regulators should be paid as regulators in the interests of the climate, not “voluntary” in the interests of nation states’ trade interests.

In my opinion, having the same people in charge of many of the multilateral organisations and negotiations for decades (largely US and Europe dominated, to be clear) is why the world and the state of global capitalism is in such a dire situation.

Also, economic rules mainly serve the rich because there’s a lack of proper and sincere “people power” in MOST nations, (north, west, south and east).

Australia wanted to link its carbon market to the EU at one point a few years back and Turkey wants to join the EU sooner than the EU apparently wants it.

So will they be able to govern COP31 well together? It seems like a test. Is the inability of the UN to decide clearly where to hold the next COP meeting a stunning example of bad governance?

The Turkey-Australia compromise, where a rich nation (Australia) oversees the talks (it rotates) and a poorer one (Turkey?!) hosts the venues gets investment, tourists and green credentials, has some logic.

Conclusion

Let me be clear on UN governance … because the knives are still out for “woke” stuff: having UN-level guardrails on capitalism to protect climate and nature and global collaboration does not limit the freedom of nations, nor the freedom of people in those countries. They do not NEED to at least. They enhance freedom because there will be less death, destruction and poverty.

It IS true that the freedom of random leaders to govern badly under the guardrails WILL be limited in the future, with luck. These guardrails are not some deep state. They are sustainable development standards that were fought hard for.

President Trump

Many of the so-called “climate negotiators” at the UNFCCC are actually protecting trade flows and status quo systems, instead of nature and environment. They really should be also protecting the 99.9% of the world’s people ….rather than looking after bad capitalism.

Don’t believe the billionaires and the “strong-man” press as they tell you woke capitalism is bad. By definition, woke capitalism is better, because it serves the 99.9% …not just the 0.1% … please note this …President Trump.

The time for better UN-climate governance is now …and, just perhaps, the Australia-Turkey deal can help show the way.

NOTES