More than 100 Cambridge academics gathered to discuss the "arm-twisting" and "frustration" of international climate negotiations, how to punish corporate "ecocide" and the urgent need for more realistic policies to address climate change.

Researchers at Cambridge departments from Law to Land Economy discussed their research and how to influence policymakers and corporations into taking actions that will result in a net zero future.

Policies govern the way people behave. Policies agreed on a national level, for example, can be designed to influence individual behaviour towards more environmentally friendly activities, such as taxing car fuel to encourage the use of public transport or providing subsidies for renewable electricity generators to encourage new green-energy businesses. 

On an international level, globally agreed targets can put pressure on countries to implement policies that encourage lower emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases, such as agreeing to achieve a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.

Across the late November afternoon, a range of experienced to early career climate policy researchers spoke on topics from the future of carbon credit markets to achieving a just transition for indigenous communities. 

Among the keynote speakers was Dr Joanna Depledge, former staff member of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, who spoke on the challenges and controversies around “consensus decision-making” at the global level for agreeing climate targets. 

Global climate accords, such as the ground-breaking Paris Agreement drafted in 2015 at the UN’s 21st Conference of Parties (COP21), require “consensus” between all countries in attendance for any decision to be accepted.

The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brought all nations together to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.

Consensus, Depledge said, can be used in bad faith. Countries can use this requirement to block the process, create mistrust and prevent the negotiations from moving forward. 

One example offered by Depledge was when Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States blocked the use of strong language welcoming the IPCC 1.5 °C report at COP24 in 2018.

Depledge discussed the numerous failed attempts to introduce “majority voting rules” in the UN climate change regime, and why consensus has remained despite the appeal of voting rules. 

More ambitious global climate policies can be achieved more easily with majority voting powers, said Depledge.

However, some researchers said that consensus provided smaller communities, such as tiny island nations, protection from the "arm-twisting" tactics used to force the adoption of policies which might have an unfairly negative impact on their countries.