This summer, I had the opportunity to attend the SB64, UN Climate Change Subsidiary Bodies Conference, in Bonn, which brings together negotiating parties, NGOs, and other organizations to discuss climate issues in preparation for the annual COP climate conference. I was there as an observer representing Emory University with support from the Climate Hub.
At my first negotiation, I found a spot against the wall and watched nearly an hour pass as negotiators debated the wording of a draft text. Should a long list of groups become “all members of society”? Should every mention of “youth” become “youth and children”?
Surprised by how just a few words carried so much weight, I found myself questioning how something as urgent as climate change could move forward through such a slow, exacting process.
But as I sat through negotiation after negotiation, I began to understand what those words were trying to hold together.
Every country and negotiating group enters these rooms from a different starting point. Their economies and energy systems differ. Their historical contributions to climate change differ. The consequences they are already experiencing differ. Yet somehow, all these realities must find space within a few pages of text that will carry forward into future negotiations.
Within the walls of the Bonn conference, I saw these different realities find a voice. Through formal negotiations, side events, and spaces for protest, different voices had opportunities to be heard. Countries, communities, and organizations could advocate for their positions and question proposed language. At the same time, being inside those rooms made me think about all those who were not. I began to understand just how much representation matters when the discussion within these walls can shape decisions felt in every corner of the world.
Every time I entered a negotiation room, I found myself searching for the India placard. Seeing it gave me a sense of pride and reassurance that India had representatives in the room, engaging with these discussions and making sure its perspectives and circumstances were part of the conversation. It also gave me a personal connection to negotiations that could otherwise feel distant and highly technical.
The value of learning from varied perspectives in the room was particularly evident during the Annual Global Stocktake Dialogue. The Global Stocktake is an assessment of where the world stands in meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, where progress is falling short, and what needs to happen next. In Bonn, the Dialogue gave representatives a space to share how they were translating those global findings into their own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs); the climate commitments each country submits under the Paris Agreement.
At the Global Stocktake, representatives from Australia, Nigeria, the Arab Group, the Pacific, and others shared the realities shaping their climate action.
Australia outlined a 2035 target of reducing national emissions by 62–70% below 2005 levels, supported by an accelerated renewable energy transition. The Arab Group presented a broader pathway that included renewables alongside carbon capture, low-carbon hydrocarbons, and clean hydrogen, reflecting the region’s development priorities. The contrast showed how countries can pursue shared climate goals through different avenues.
The Pacific group’s presentation stood out to me. The group estimated that approximately $650 million in renewable energy finance is needed annually to meet Pacific NDC targets, while actual renewable energy finance flows in 2023 were just $67 million, a nearly tenfold gap.
I expected that number to feel discouraging. Instead, I found it inspiring. Despite the distance between their goals and the resources available to achieve them, Pacific Island countries did not temper their ambition. They continued to pursue their renewable-energy targets while pushing for the finance and support needed to realize them.
By the end of my time in Bonn, after attending side events, negotiations, and informal meetings, I understood much more clearly why progress on global climate action can be challenging, and I developed a greater appreciation for the nuance of the process.
Collective action does not mean identical action, which is why finding the right words to reflect these differences matters.
