On with the show at UN COP31

From CFACT

By David Wojick

COP31 is upon us, and while you may think it is pointless, it is still a spectacle worth watching.

These folks are professional negotiators who could just as easily spend eleven luxury days debating the seating priorities on the first passenger trip to Mars. There is also the enormous global trade show that comes with it.

So here are a few interesting negotiations to look out for. The beginning of the end of COPs might even be on the table. This is not about the formal agenda because tricky issues have a way of springing up. Surprise is a big part of the spectacle.

First, there is the annual issue of MORE MONEY. Mind you, funding commitments are never mentioned, just more ways to get it. This year there are at least two “funding mechanisms” under discussion.

One is called the “Just Transition Mechanism” where the transition is question is the imaginary end of fossil fuel use. The idea is to fund regions, communities, businesses, and people who are hurt by the transition. Unemployed oilfield workers for example, when we stop using oil.

This critter already exists at the EU level having been created around 2021.

https://commission.europa.eu/topics/regional-and-urban-policy/just-transition-mechanism_en

The issue at COP31 is whether to create a global version of the Just Transition Mechanism.

The second proposed new mechanism is the “Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF),” which is not actually a UN Climate activity. Australia, which just signed a PRF Treaty with Fiji, explains it this way:

“The PRF is the first Pacific-led, owned and managed community resilience financing facility. It will provide grants for climate adaptation, disaster preparedness, and projects that respond to loss and damage. It will seize the economic opportunities of clean energy through resilient, community led projects.”

https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/australia-and-fiji-ratify-pacific-resilience-facility-treaty

What the PRF is doing at COP31 is unclear and there is a lot of that going around.

There are a growing number of non-UN climate activities springing up. Each is driven by the correct observation that the COP extravaganzas are going nowhere.

The leading example is the effort to develop fossil fuel transition “roadmaps” for every country. This is explained in my article “The ‘Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels’ project has become a global program.”

https://www.cfact.org/2026/08/24/the-transitioning-away-from-fossil-fuels-project-has-become-a-global-program/

Another rogue activity is designing a new Fossil Fuel Treaty (FFT) mandating the phase out that countries can adopt (possibly using a roadmap). As a treaty, the FFT would be a legally binding instrument enforceable by the courts. The FFT has its own promoting organization here.

https://www.fossilfueltreaty.org/

What is most interesting is that such a treaty has the potential to destabilize the UN Climate Change Program. The UN Program is based on an existing treaty, the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The FFT could compete with the FCCC such as for financial resources and even for jurisdiction. The FFT might even make the FCCC obsolete.

Ironically, the Roadmap rogue started with a suggestion by the COP30 president. The COP31 president has made a new suggestion called the “electrification goal.” The core electrification goal for COP31 is the “35 by 35” pledge, which aims to raise electricity’s share of global final energy consumption from roughly 20–23% today to 35% by 2035. This too may become a non-UN activity.

How COP31 will handle these rogue initiatives is the really big show.

5 12 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
42 Comments
November 1, 2026 6:25 am

Comical. If we eliminate fossil fuels, we eliminate wind and solar since wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave given that they can’t produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production. Plus, as Ronald Stein repeatedly points out, wind and solar can’t be used as transportation fuels or used to produce the over 6000 petroleum based products we use in everyday life. The net is, there is not one thing in our life that we eat, drink, wear, walk on or otherwise consume that is not 100% dependent on fossil fuels.

gyan1
Reply to  Barnes Moore
November 1, 2026 8:48 am

Eliminating national sovereignty is the goal. Handouts to keep nations dependent and under their control is what this is about. America would be under their thumb if it wasn’t for Trump.

Reply to  gyan1
November 1, 2026 6:59 pm

Don’t forget Marco Rubio. At question time recently, when some dufus asked him about climate change, the answer was “It wasn’t on the agenda. Next”.

David Wojick
November 1, 2026 6:37 am

Another show is the so-called comments on this article at CFACT. There are 95 comments none addressing the article. Instead there are three alarmist trolls arguing endlessly and emptily for AGW. Elind, Harden and Greene (green!).
https://www.cfact.org/2026/10/30/on-with-the-show-at-cop-31/#disqus_thread

John Hultquist
Reply to  David Wojick
November 1, 2026 8:35 am

I had a look. Those folks need to meet in a pub, and I’ll pay for the beer until they fall off the stools.

Reply to  John Hultquist
November 1, 2026 9:51 am

Those three trolls make the Meth Twins look like geniuses.

David Wojick
Reply to  John Hultquist
November 1, 2026 10:12 am

Note they have not come over to WUWT. CFACT may be the best blog going to see alarmists in full cry.

Reply to  David Wojick
November 1, 2026 10:55 am

If the alarmist come here spouting nonsense, we will readily beat them up.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Harold Pierce
November 1, 2026 6:03 pm

You do not speak for me.
I prefer repeatedly presenting data and refuting doctored past temperature records and false claims.
Besides, how would we learn about their blind spots, the arguments they make revealing what has convinced them.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  David Wojick
November 1, 2026 11:09 pm

Evidence that there is still a critical need for putting out the accumulated evidence against the scientific theory that human use of fossil fuel is warming the planet.
All the rest is important, but the core error, fraud, lie, mistake … whatever is the planet is heating at an alarming and accelerating rate because of HUMAN USE OF FOSSIL FUEL and nothing else.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
November 2, 2026 10:31 am

It is not a scientific theory. It is a conjecture or at best a minimally supported hypothesis.
Very difficult to formulate (and test) the null hypothesis test without destroying human civilizations on the global scale.

Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2026 6:41 am

How about creating a global Just Stop Lying mechanism.

November 1, 2026 6:41 am

Concerning all “these rogue initiatives” —
the more confusion, the less likely to accomplish any one thing.
Each has its own techno-babble to contribute to the general cacophony.
May a thousand such flowers bloom & fade
Until they all wilt, detach & blow away in an epic windstorm
Like the legendary tower ripped to pieces

Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2026 6:51 am

They really should have some dogs, ponies, and clowns. And more cowbell, for sure.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2026 7:23 am

They do. That is what all of the “rogue” distractions are about. The clowns are the participants and audience who think it serves the purpose stated in the brochure.

November 1, 2026 7:26 am

From the above article:

“The PRF is the first Pacific-led, owned and managed community resilience financing facility. It will provide grants for climate adaptation, disaster preparedness, and projects that respond to loss and damage. It will seize the economic opportunities of clean energy through resilient, community led projects.”

Of course, not mentioned: who provides the funding for PRF? Otherwise, it’s a wonderful-sounding word salad.

P.S. The US has a large border along the eastern and northern Pacific Ocean . . . just sayin’.

David Wojick
Reply to  ToldYouSo
November 1, 2026 7:34 am

Good point!

Curious George
Reply to  ToldYouSo
November 1, 2026 7:46 am

It’s all about financing. They have great hopes for President Gavin Newsom, who has a great experience in this area. He may even build a Trans-Pacific high speed train.

Reply to  Curious George
November 1, 2026 1:27 pm

That’ll be a hovertrain which goes over water.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 1, 2026 1:27 pm

Otherwise known as a passenger ship.

Reply to  Oldseadog
November 2, 2026 8:02 am

But one that operates solely using only—you guessed it!—renewable energy sources, mainly wind and solar.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Curious George
November 2, 2026 10:32 am

Hmm…. Does that mean only trans-gender identifying individuals would be allowed to board?

Mr.
Reply to  ToldYouSo
November 1, 2026 10:22 am

The PRF.
Splitters!

(And by the way, I’m working on convening a new NFP NGO whose mission is to eradicate acronyms. I’d be pleased to hear from everyone who might lodge an EOI for this. RSVP me by FB DM if you like.)

Reply to  Mr.
November 2, 2026 8:22 am

The idea of UNA (Use No Acronyms) has been tried before . . . as a matter of fact, it was reported that Elon Musk dictated this briefly as standard policy at SpaceX before realizing the impracticality of such resulting inefficient communications between engineers and between lawyers. (NASA, its NGO COTS initiative for human transport to/from ISS, DoD and the CIA likely appreciated that realization in their contracts, aka SOWs, paperwork with SpaceX, hah!)

Nevertheless, FYI, I’m wishing you luck with receiving submittals offered by WUWT commenters and, perhaps, others from the MSM or SM.

Please LMK how it turns out.
—TYS

Mr.
Reply to  ToldYouSo
November 2, 2026 10:14 am

Thanks TYS.
🙂

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
November 2, 2026 10:34 am

IKR

Denis
November 1, 2026 7:50 am

One of the funding transitions required to end the use of fossil fuels is that of new chemistry to come up with ways to make the thousands of products made from them. How much money is going to that?

Rod Evans
November 1, 2026 9:03 am

The prime objective of any bureaucracy is to maintain the bureaucracy.
With that in mind, it is clearer why the UN will continue to push the Climate Alarmism agenda and with it the COP get togethers. Those assemblies are now bringing up to 80,000 public servants including interested scientists and media together in a far flung meeting. All attendees are on expenses and all are determined, stating it is their ambition to do it all again next year.
This nonsense waste of public money must be stopped. The COP gatherings all 30 annual get togethers have achieved precisely nothing when considering their impact on weather/climate outcomes.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Rod Evans
November 2, 2026 10:35 am

The prime objective of any bureaucracy is to maintain and enlarge the bureaucracy.

Coeur de Lion
November 1, 2026 9:33 am

Will there be a headcount of the international high-end harlots that gravitate to these events ?

David Wojick
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 1, 2026 9:50 am

Revenue might be even more interesting. Including per “item”.

Rick C
November 1, 2026 10:42 am

Odd, I can’t find any mention of emergency technical/science meetings to address the impact of withdrawing the now defunct RCP 8.5 scenario on their warming projections. WG1 needs to redo the climate change assessments and withdraw all conclusions based on the 8.5 assumptions. Of course with the likely conclusion being “NEVER MIND”, it’s not going to be a popular subject for these troughers.

Bob
November 1, 2026 12:07 pm

I can’t put into words how little I care what these rich over educated punks think or say.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Bob
November 1, 2026 4:06 pm

Cancel might be a start.

Jeff Alberts
November 1, 2026 12:24 pm

“These folks are professional negotiators“

That’s not the word I would use.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 2, 2026 10:37 am

Perhaps politicians might be better as it includes a host of characteristics.

November 1, 2026 7:10 pm

Don’t miss out:

“owned and managed community resilience financing facility”.

50% off if you act today.

November 1, 2026 8:31 pm

Sir, it’s not that simple. “Just transition” is not restricted to “the imaginary end of fossil fuel use”. Look at the UN global reports/statements/briefs that have been released over the last couple of years. “A global version“ of the just transition implies the end of capitalism and the free world. Simply put, they are Trotskyists. They have modified the terminology: they use “just transition to a low-carbon economy” instead of “world revolution”, and “global environmental/climate crisis” – instead of “general crisis of capitalism”. The “proletariat” is now being replaced by “indigenous peoples”, “local communities”, “vulnerable groups” etc. who are supposed to be the firewood for this revolution. In this context, allow me to disagree to your point that “the FFT might even make the FCCC obsolete”. Not at all, it will only strengthen their resolve by providing a simplified and streamlined global platform for Trotskyists to consolidate more destructive forces as well as “useful idiots” on the way to the “world revolution”. Thank you. 

November 1, 2026 8:54 pm

These folks are professional negotiators

AKA pimps

oeman50
Reply to  Redge
November 2, 2026 6:01 am

I was wondering how harlots would be brought into the discussion.

Sean2828
November 2, 2026 2:31 am

This statement is overly optimistic:

“There are a growing number of non-UN climate activities springing up. Each is driven by the correct observation that the COP extravaganzas are going nowhere.”

After 30 years of COP extravaganzas, annual global greenhouse gas emissions have doubled. Perhaps it’s time to hold the leaders of this expensive charade accountable.