It is time for the United Nations to completely rethink its annual conference on climate change, says economist Jayati Ghosh.

Ghosh, a frequent adviser to the UN, is one of many prominent climate experts and former UN and world leaders who signed an open letter calling on the organization to completely overhaul the annual event that brings together delegates from member countries to fight climate change.

This year’s conference, COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, was particularly difficult with controversy.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev opened the conference by calling his country’s oil reserves a “gift from God.”

Senior official of Azerbaijani COP29 team arrested use the conference to strike potential deals on fossil fuels with a man posing as an investor.

And efforts to agree on a financing formula to help developing countries adapt to climate change — which was the main goal this year — have largely stalled.

Ghosh, a development economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, spoke with As it happens host Nil Köksal explains why she believes the COP is failing in its mission and how it could be better. Here is part of their conversation.

What made you decide to sign this letter?

These COPs have become meaningless rituals that achieve nothing. And the problems are too urgent and too intense for us to continue to have these big summits that produce no results.

You and the others say that the time is no longer for debate and negotiation. It’s time to actually implement things. Why is it still in the negotiation phase?

The problem, in reality, is that countries are coming to make these commitments in the distant future. So they say “by 2050 or 2070”. And that frees them (from the hook).

What we really need are concrete promises, saying: these are the steps I’m going to take next year, the year after. And then you come back and say: Well, I took these actions or I didn’t take these actions for the following reasons.

There is no liability. There is no real road map that tells us exactly how we are going to proceed.

We must move towards more frequent, (and) smaller summits. Not, you know, a lot of these private jets coming in with fossil fuel companies trying to do side deals. But we need smaller events that are really focused on clear promises that will be kept.

The United States has just experienced a landmark (presidential) election. Donald Trump was re-elected. We know what he has said on this issue in the past. Is there enough agreement to actually work and achieve the kind of implementation you’re talking about?

Of course (Trump’s victory) is bad. It’s very bad for the planet. It’s bad for the climate. I think it’s bad for the United States. But the problem is that the United States has never really been the best-faith negotiator in the climate process.

Remember, the United States is now the world’s largest producer of fossil fuels. It is a net exporter of fossil fuels. And its activities in these negotiations, even under different Democratic administrations, have not necessarily been in the multilateral interest. This is in the direction of its own national interest.

So I don’t think it will make a huge difference. I think what really matters is how the rest of the world reacts.

The very first recommendation in the letter concerns which countries should be allowed to chair the COP process… Was this recommendation aimed at Azerbaijan in particular?

Not necessarily only in Azerbaijan. We now have a series of these COPs, which (are) based in fossil fuel countries. And it’s common knowledge now that these sites have become places where all the fossil fuel companies can strike side deals.

We should at least have host countries that are very clearly committed to reducing fossil fuel production.

But what do you say, Professor, to those who argue that the climate process must include everyone, even if COP participants disagree with the leaders and policies of the countries in which the summits are taking place? That it has to be inclusive (and) everyone has to be involved for it to ever actually work?

Oh, I agree. I think everyone must agree. But I think what’s happening today is that these summits have become performances rather than real attempts at change. So what we’re saying is if you want to be a part of this, prove that you’re actually going to do something.

History is truly on the side of those demanding change. And we are already seeing (a change). I mean, the energy transition is underway. China and other countries are moving forward. More and more countries will recognize that this is the future.

And for all you know, even the Trump administration…may be realizing that it can’t afford to be left behind.

WATCH | Not enough talk on fossil fuels at COP29, advocates say:

Lack of discussion on fossil fuels at COP29 worries climate advocates

As the COP29 climate negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan, reach a critical stage, some advocates are concerned about the lack of discussion on the transition away from fossil fuels.

Do I hear optimism in this?

That’s correct. I think there is optimism because I believe that the ultimate confidence must be towards a just and green energy transition. This won’t happen easily. I think there are huge vested interests opposed to this. But on the other hand, it happens.

Despite the fact that these are performative summits, despite the fact that they are literally meaningless rituals and developing countries are not getting the funding and technology they need to their transition, there’s a kind of momentum that’s going to be hard to get. ignore in the future.

When people hear you say these peaks don’t really matter…. What do you want them to take away from our conversation?

The fact that they don’t matter is a tragedy. We must give them importance. And the only way to do that is to put pressure on our own governments to make responsible commitments and keep their promises.

It’s up to people to force the transformation.