Three New Year’s Resolutions Inspired by COP 26 Failure

Bob Willard, PhD, SEP

The August Intergovernmental Panel report (IPCC) report, Climate Change 2021, was a code red for humanity. The November COP 26 meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, was billed as humanity’s last and best chance to keep the all-important goal—of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—alive. The press hyped it as an opportunity to avert climate catastrophe. The urgency was clear. Hopes were high.


Instead, the Glasgow Climate Pact signed at the end of COP 26 calls upon countries to (1) transition towards “low-emission” energy sources, (2) escalate efforts to “phase down” “unabated” coal power, and (3) phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies. There is malevolent wiggle room in all three resolutions. They have no deadlines, no teeth, and no urgency.


A friend suggested that if I could get past the profanities, I might enjoy the biting humor in Jonathan Pie: The World's End and its damnation of COP 26 dynamics. I did. I expect that climate scientists identify with the despair of the astronomers in Don’t Look Up about their warnings of impending catastrophe not being taken seriously by governments. Me too.


The Bitter Takeaways

The good news is that I learned three hard lessons from the 26th COP-out.


  • The fossil fuel lobby is awesomely powerful. The fossil fuel industry lobbyists constituted a larger delegation (503) than any single country. For the last 25 COPs, they have managed to prevent final agreements from acknowledging that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.


  • We can’t rely on national governments to fix climate change. Conferences Of the Parties (COPs) convene U.N. member states. According to new research from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), national governments subsidized the production and burning of coal, oil, and gas by $5.9 Trillion in 2020. How can we trust national governments to prevent a crime against humanity that they are using our tax dollars to abet?

  • Country-level pledges are unreliable. Countries bring their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to COPs, pledging to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) contributions to the climate crisis. However, these pledges are not legally binding commitments nor are they adequate Even if countries kept their COP 26 NDC pledges, temperatures would rise 2.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—well above the danger threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius.


Target Demand Reduction

For me, these are very inconvenient truths. They engendered feelings of despair, even a temptation to give up. If I can’t rely on national governments to straight-arm the fossil fuel lobby and stop the production of fossil fuels, what hope is there?


Yet, realistically, expecting COP 26 to be any more effective than the previous 25 COPs is akin to Charlie Brown’s wishful thinking that Lucy won’t pull the football away. It’s time to wake up and use a different strategy. Instead of sitting back and relying on national governments to cut back the supply of polluting fossil fuels, we need to roll up our sleeves and reduce the demand for them.


The stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones; it ended because we developed better technologies that made stone-based technologies obsolete. The fossil fuel age will not end because we run out of fossil fuels; it will end because we have transitioned from a fossil fuel-powered economy to a renewable energy-powered economy. We need to make fossil fuel energy unnecessary, unwanted.


The transition to “net-zero” is all about reducing demand by weaning ourselves off our dependence on fossil fuels. As defined by the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), businesses meet the Net-Zero Standard by cutting their GHG emissions 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. The net-zero movement is a fossil fuel demand-reducing movement. Perfect.


The Road to Net-Zero: Influence The Influencers

But how do we get a critical mass of businesses to commit to reduce their GHGs 50% by 2030? Best would be to follow the money and influence the influencers. So, my three New Year’s resolutions are to work with influencers to:


  1. Convince buyers to use sustainable procurement, which requires suppliers to disclose their sustainability performance, and then give preferential treatment to suppliers that are taking the most action to reduce their GHGs.
  2. Convince stock exchanges and investors to require listed companies to disclose the risk of climate-related impacts on their financials, as well as their plans to mitigate those financial impacts by taking action to reduce their GHGs.
  3. Convince bankers to offer sustainability-linked loans, which require borrowers to disclose their sustainability performance, and then give preferential treatment to borrowers that are taking the most action to reduce their GHGs.


Companies will want to improve their sustainability scores, lower their GHGs, and transition away from fossil fuels so that they qualify for favored treatment from buyers, investors, and bankers.


Unleash Market Forces

Is this wishful thinking? Not at all. Some buyers, investors and bankers are already doing these things. We have the necessary tools and expertise to help more do the same. Our challenge is to quickly scale our efforts so that a critical mass of buyers, investors, and bankers adopt these practices. This will unleash market forces that mobilize a global critical mass of companies’ self-serving drive to net-zero demand for fossil fuels.


Can we pull this off? I’m not sure, but I’m going to have fun trying, and will start with the deployment of sustainable procurement at federal and municipal levels. As well, I plan to offer webinars that help others assess whether similar tactics could be useful in their own sustainability champion efforts. Glasgow made clear: it's up to us. Let's go.


PHOTO: Pradamas Gifarry | Unsplash | Ratchathewi District, Bangkok


About the Author:

Bob Willard, PhD, SEP
Chief Sustainability Champion & Founder, Sustainability Advantage
ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Honoree

Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

You're doing the work. But are you building capacity for change?

By Jacqueline Kerr, PHD • May 27, 2026
May 2026 We spend enormous energy telling people what needs to change, and very little time thinking about how change actually happens. Most sustainability efforts inside organizations are built around the individual. Convince the right person. Model the right behavior. Win the argument in the room. And to be fair, that approach gets things moving. Until it doesn't. The real barrier isn't information. It isn't even intent. It's the conditions we create for people to change together. What I'm seeing in the most effective organizations isn't individual champions doing heroic work. It's something more structural: well-designed groups where people shift together, hold each other accountable, and build something that doesn't collapse when one person leaves the room.

Regenerative Partnerships in Supply Chains: From Good Intentions to Real Change

By Nitesh Dullabh • April 28, 2026
April 2026 I walked away from a recent webinar with a lingering thought: we’ve spent years improving supply chains, but very little time truly rethinking them. Most of the systems we rely on today were built for efficiency - to move goods faster, cheaper, at scale. And to be fair, they’ve done that remarkably well. But they were never designed for the complexity we’re now facing: climate volatility, geopolitical and tariff uncertainty, water stress, soil degradation, and widening inequities across supply chains. So what do we do? We add layers - more audits, more reporting, more standards. Necessary? Yes. Sufficient? Not really. The deeper issue is not performance - it’s creating healthy conditions for design and structure. What I’m seeing instead, and what I believe is the real shift underway, is the move toward regenerative partnerships . Not transactional relationships, but systems of collaboration that are designed to endure, adapt, and regenerate value over time through and with relational relationships. 

Two Courses, One Mission: Building Sustainability Practitioners Who Are Ready to Act

By By Amy Hall, MSc, Education Lead, TripleWin Advisory • March 23, 2026
March 23, 2026 I spend a lot of time thinking about how we teach sustainability. Not just the what , but the how and why . At TripleWin Advisory , a woman-founded, -owned, and -led sustainability consultancy and registered public benefit company, we believe real progress on circularity requires more than good intentions. It requires practitioners who are genuinely equipped to act. That conviction is what led us to develop two courses now available through ISSP: Cultivate and Mitigate . Both courses have since been adopted by universities and are reaching sustainability students across the country. Knowing what went into building them makes me want to share the story behind each one. Mitigate: Built From Practice, Not Textbooks Mitigate was created from hands-on work with partners tackling one of the most pressing issues in sustainability: food waste. Reducing food waste is consistently ranked among the highest-impact solutions to climate change, and yet it remains one of the most underfunded and under-addressed areas in the field. TripleWin Advisory has worked with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Pacific Coast Food Waste Commitment (PCFWC) , a public-private partnership whose frameworks were ultimately adopted at the national level. Those assets, that research, and those hard-won insights form the backbone of Mitigate. When we talk about food waste reduction strategies in this course, we're drawing on frameworks that have been tested and refined in real supply chains and policy environments. For learners who want to do this work professionally, that grounding matters. The University of Wisconsin has integrated Mitigate into their undergraduate and graduate sustainability programs, which speaks to what the course offers academically: rigorous, applied content that bridges the classroom and the field.
More blog posts