The preparations for the 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31), scheduled for November 2026 and tasked with formulating resolutions on the so-called ‘climate problem,’ have become embroiled in scandal.
The History of the ‘Climate Problem’: Key Questions
When was the ‘climate problem’ transferred from the realm of scientific research into that of political practice? (It is significant to pinpoint that the extreme politicisation of this ‘problem’ is a widely acknowledged fact, both among its proponents and, particularly, its detractors.)
How justified is its presence on the current political agenda?
As a potential starting point for the emergence of this particular issue, one might indicate the 1972 Conference on the generalised topic of Human Environment (also under the auspices of the United Nations), which indeed constituted a highly noteworthy and useful event. Let us recall just two ideas from the extensive document adopted as a result of the event: ‘Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance…’ and the need ‘to demonstrate greater care regarding the consequences of (human) activity for the environment’.
In essence, these words merely fix at a high political level the age-old wisdom of taking care of the home in which one lives and works. However, the document as a whole shows no trace of the current central objective, namely the ‘impending danger from greenhouse gas emissions’ as a consequence of that very activity. It is hardly coincidental that this ‘threat’ rose to the political surface at the end of the 1980s, that is, during the twilight of the Cold War. Please note — together with a number of other equally ‘scientifically grounded’ postulates and projects, such as the ‘End of History’ and the ‘Washington Consensus.’
At that same time, S.H. Schneider, who had previously specialised in the issue of the ‘foremost greenhouse gas,’ carbon dioxide – which is indeed released into the atmosphere, in particular, as a result of human activity – was appointed as an unassailable scientific authority. His work was referenced throughout the process of the political legitimisation and de facto ratification of the aforementioned hypothesis. This process was set in motion in 1992 with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and concluded in 2015 with the adoption of the so-called Paris Agreement. Here, it is possible to take a look at some of the public initiators of the 2015 Agreement, behind whom there are puppeteers who evade being in the public eye.
With the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the ‘decarbonisation problem’ definitively moved to the centre of global economic policy, with predictable consequences for countries specialising in the extraction and trade of carbon-based fuel resources. Violators of the specific provisions of this policy must pay equally specific sums. Thus, following the emphasis on the ‘greenhouse effect’ and the associated ‘decarbonization problem,’ the age-old ‘piastres’ found themselves at the heart of the entire affair.
A critical analysis of both the scientific validity of the ‘greenhouse effect’ concept and the competence of S.H. Schneider is available, for example, via the following link: https://www.nts-ees.ru/assets/doc/p/presentation-p105-2025-10-22.pdf. In the realms of the political rhetoric surrounding this ‘problem,’ calls for immediate action are frequently heard: ‘We must implement the recommended measures today; otherwise, if the greenhouse effect is indeed real, it will be too late!’ However, such reasoning, based on hypothetical threats and appeals to urgency, borders on irrational prophecy and has nothing to do with the scientific approach.
Disagreements at the COP ‘Secretariat’ Meeting
In fact, the question of the scientific (in)validity of the ‘decarbonisation problem’ lay at the heart of the disagreements that arose in mid-June at the COP Secretariat meeting in Bonn, Germany – that is, the key preparatory event before the COP31 Summit. The very prospect of this event has now been questioned, and, it bears repeating, this is by no means the precedent, as divergences of the kind did surface earlier, for example, at the previous COP30 in Belém, Brazil.
Attention was drawn to the meme ‘Science is not up for debate’ emblazoned on T-shirts worn by certain ‘green activists’ who positioned themselves near the venue of the aforementioned meeting. This is despite the fact that precisely and solely what is ‘up for debate’ can be referred to as science. What is not debated are the pronouncements of Greta Thunberg and her supporter Annalena Baerbock, shamanic incantations involving the movement of the stars, propaganda, and ‘doctrines which are all-powerful because they are true.’ In the same vein resides the ‘decarbonisation problem’, elevated to the status of dogma by the Paris Agreement.
The commentaries on the Bonn incident indicate the role of vested interests among certain participants, primarily oil-producing countries. This factor is undoubtedly present, but in this particular case, it plays a secondary role amidst the much more fundamental, I reiterate, questionable scientific justification for the presence of this ‘problem’ in the sphere of practical activity.
It is noteworthy that real and extremely hazardous environmental issues, against which the very same ‘1972 UN Conference’ warned, lie beyond the realms of the attention of adherents of the ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ factor. Among these, for example, is the overarching ‘Water Problem’ within the triangle of three nuclear powers – China, India and Pakistan – which is home to three billion people. The ‘Water Problem’ is directly embedded in the complex web of relations between the ‘corners’ of this configuration. We might also mention the smog of catastrophic proportions that periodically engulfs the megacities of India and Pakistan. All of this, I repeat, lies outside the purview of COP participants, or is most crudely reduced to the same ‘greenhouse effect’.
The ‘Climate Problem’ in the Better Order Project Initiative
The ‘climate change problem,’ with the ‘greenhouse effect’ at its core, has come under the scrutiny of the authors of a highly noteworthy initiative, the ‘Better Order Project’ of the Quincy Institute. In January 2026, a new version of a document entitled ‘Better Security Order’ was published, which involved over 130 experts from 40 countries having worked on it.
The principal aim of the study is to formulate the necessary measures for a relatively painless transition away from an obsolete unipolar world. Twenty such measures were figured out, grouped into seven categories, most of which are extremely pertinent and important. We might mention, for example, ‘Reforming the UN Security Council,’ ‘Strengthening the rules on the use of armed force’, and ‘Preventing nuclear war’. In the authors’ view, should these measures not be taken, the uncontrolled transitional process will lead not to the currently popular multipolar world order, but to a ‘multiorder world,’ in which ‘zero-sum games will intensify and the potential for effective global cooperation will diminish.’
The theme of ‘climate change,’ with its emphasis on the determining role of ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ and, consequently, the need for ‘decarbonisation’ of the economy, also found its place. This phenomenon is difficult to explain other than by the exceptional influence of some behind-the-scenes lobby, which appears to stand behind other global events of the past two or three decades as well. It is this lobby, using proxies, that is initiating the current extremely dangerous games in Europe, which are teetering on the brink of catastrophe.
Under the present circumstances, it is premature to speak of ‘Better Order projects’ or, even more so, of the ‘greenhouse gas problem.’ The primary task at present is survival – and survival immediately.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on Asia-Pacific region issues
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
