NAIROBI: On the eve of the closing plenary of seventh UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7), the world’s top environmental body finds itself walking into one of the most politically fraught moments in its history.
UNEP’s Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) is in limbo after a week of acrimonious negotiations, at least two resolutions have been withdrawn overnight, including one on environmental crime, and blocs led by major fossil-fuel producers are pushing to dilute language on the energy transition, chemicals, plastics and circularity.
All this is happening against the warnings of the newly released Global Environment Outlook 7 (GEO-7), the UN’s most authentic state-of-the-planet assessment, which concludes that the world is not remotely on track to meet its environmental goals. Multiple tipping points could be breached within decades and the next five years will determine the trajectory of the next century.
Against this backdrop, TNIE sat down with Sir Robert Watson, one of the most influential environmental scientists and co-chair of GEO-7. In a rare, candid conversation, Watson spoke from the heart about the scale of the crisis, the political barriers that continue to obstruct action, and the narrow window the world still has to change course.
Over five decades, he has shaped the architecture of global environmental assessments and remains known for a singular trait - an uncompromising insistence that physics, chemistry and biology do not negotiate, even when governments do.
Here are the excerpts:
Several governments blocked the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). What exactly transpired?
A small group of countries opposed certain issues, probably five or ten contentious points. They challenged what we said on fossil fuels, fossil-fuel subsidies, plastics, plastic waste, the circular economy, conflict, and even diet change. These governments didn’t want science to challenge their political positions. We were not there to negotiate the science — the science is solid and it’s in the large report.
But these countries kept pushing to modify or remove material on those issues, and eventually we failed to get approval. We then took the good comments we received from supportive governments and turned the document into the Executive Summary. It is basically the SPM, but not government-approved. Those countries that opposed science weren’t going to use it anyway.
With Donald Trump returning and the US becoming inward-looking, how do you assess the risks to global environmental governance?
Trump and the Republicans have openly said that climate change is a “hoax.” It isn’t — but their position is that we shouldn’t be using renewable energy and should continue relying on fossil fuels. That stance comes at a time when several countries — especially OPEC members like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran — already wanted to go slowly on phasing out fossil fuels because their economies depend so heavily on oil.
Under Biden, Obama and earlier under Clinton, the United States said clearly that climate change is a serious issue and that the world must act. Even then, OPEC countries resisted — understandably, given their economic structures. But with Trump returning and calling climate action unnecessary, it has strengthened the hand of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and others who want to delay the energy transition. Trump's actions have global reach.
When the US steps back, it creates a broader coalition that is inward-looking, resistant to climate ambition and influential across multilateral processes. What should others do? We need a 'coalition of the willing'. The overwhelming majority of countries understand the climate threat — that’s why they signed the Paris Agreement, the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and why they engage with the science from IPCC, IPBES and GEO.
But the problem is consensus: in the UN system, one, two or three countries can block everything. They can veto progress. So the question is political, not scientific. If 90% of countries want to act, should they really be stopped by the 10% that refuse? At some point, those willing to move forward will need mechanisms to do so — even if a few countries try to hold the world back.
The report warns that multiple climate and biosphere tipping points could be crossed within decades. How should policymakers communicate urgency without causing fatalism, and what immediate actions reduce the risks?
Even if the IPCC models are exactly right, we have already warmed 1.3°C. That means some tipping points could be passed even at 1.5°C. Under current projections of 2.4–3.9°C, almost all tipping systems are threatened. For instance, coral reefs, once global warming exceeds about 2'C, they will die without months or a year. Large natural El Nino events already cause temporary coral bleaching, after which reefs can recover when temperatures fall.
The concern is that sustained warming beyond the tipping point would resemble continuous bleaching conditions, preventing refs from re-establishing themselves and leading to widespread, effectively permanent loss.
Immediate actions come from the energy section: diversify energy production, increase renewables, accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels, electrify systems, and phase out and repurpose fossil-fuel subsidies. In food systems, address unsustainable meat production and agrochemical overuse. Acting now reduces the chance of crossing those thresholds.
GEO-7 suggests both behaviour-centred and technology-centred transformation pathways. Which is more realistic in the next decade? What is your take on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which some countries are advocating?
Both are needed because the five systems — finance, energy, materials, food and waste — are highly interlinked. When you change energy policy, it affects food; when you change economic policy, it affects energy and materials.
No single pathway works alone. Governments must take a whole-of-government approach, and the private sector and banking system must shift investments toward renewable energy, efficiency and sustainable agriculture. We are running out of time and not on a pathway to meet environmental goals or the SDGs, so action across all systems is needed now.
On CCS, that's a real gamble with the Earth. I would definitely not support it. Why would you rely on an unproven, untested technology when we have technologies we should use today. There are some people who are gambling, gambling...
“Investing in Earth now can lead to a trillion-dollar benefit.” Who pays and who benefits, given that high-income consumption drives impacts while low-income countries bear them?
The industrialised world has largely caused most of these problems. They therefore have a responsibility to help developing countries invest in their future so they become more sustainable and economically independent. Assistance must include finance and technology cooperation.
Solutions must also consider that countries like India and China now have both wealthy middle-class populations and very poor populations, so responsibilities differ within countries too. Trust and fair investment arrangements are essential.
GEO-7 calls for transforming economic and financial systems. Which levers should be used immediately?
Start with phasing out and repurposing environmentally harmful subsidies, especially for fossil fuels and agriculture. Shift the banking system and private finance away from unsustainable fossil-fuel and agricultural investments toward renewable energy, efficiency and sustainable food systems. Governments must value natural capital — not just GDP — and integrate sustainability into economic policymaking.
Indigenous knowledge is central in GEO-7. How do we ensure this leads to real decision-making power and resource flows?
There is no single enforcement mechanism. Different countries will have to decide how to include Indigenous peoples and local communities in decision-making. They hold a significant share of the world’s biodiversity and must be part of decisions. Some countries already empower them — Scandinavia with the Sami, Canada with Inuit communities. Their philosophy of life — not destroying nature — is as important as their knowledge. Countries must look carefully at how to use this knowledge in ways that benefit everyone.
GEO-7 highlights how global trade and investment export environmental harm. Are current trade rules enabling or blocking the needed transformations?
Trade is a challenge for developing countries. A developed country should not import products from a developing country if that production causes environmental harm. But the developing country might then lose exports. Both sides must agree: buyers must commit to purchasing only sustainable goods, and exporters must raise standards even if it risks some market loss. Transformation requires both sides to act.
This is again a political decision to make. I reiterate that industrialised countries have caused most problems and must help developing countries invest to become sustainable.
Plastics, emerging contaminants and waste are major GEO-7 concerns. What mix of upstream limits, trade measures and finance tools is needed?
Plastics and the circular economy were among the issues some countries had problems with. GEO-7 covers plastics, emerging contaminants, waste and food. Countries supportive of the science will use the document to guide policy; those opposed would not use it regardless. Upstream controls and circularity measures must go hand in hand with waste-management improvements.
What are the main political blockers to progress, and how can scientists and civil society overcome them?
The major blocker is consensus: one, two or three countries can veto action. Some governments simply don’t want science to challenge their political positions on fossil fuels, plastics or diets. Another blocker is the withdrawal of funding from major contributors, especially the US.
Strategies: build a coalition of the willing; work across government ministries; engage the private sector and banking system; and mobilize young people and citizens to shape their future, because governments respond to societal pressure.
UNEP has been vocal about funding crunch during INC 5.2 in Geneva and it is the case with several UN organisations. Was there funding difficulty in producing the GEO-7 report?
The United States, historically under different regimes, was a major funder for IPCC and IPBES. Now, that is gone. Even some of the other countries have also started cutting funds because of which the UN bodies regular budget got a severe beating. This also affects UNEP and other organizations like WHO, FAO, UNDP, UNESCO etc. It means UNEP must rethink staffing and may lose very good people.
Funding GEO-7 itself required support from countries like the UK, EU, Canada, Austria, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and others. Funding assessments like GEO will probably become even more difficult in the future.