The Sink or Swim Project

My first direct, personal introduction to the plight that the world’s small island nations face from our climate crisis was in 2017 when I was honored to address the General Assembly of the United Nations with young people from around the world on World Oceans Day. During my time in New York that summer (you can read a bit about it here), I met children from all sorts of exotic places including Papahanamokuakea (Hawaii), Lord Howe Island and the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), Africa, Sudan, and the Wadden Sea (Netherlands), but it was the stories that the youth from the Republic of Seychelles shared that most touched my heart.

The Seychelles, a remote country in the Indian Ocean 1,500 miles off the coast of Africa, is one of the 39 countries or territories that the United Nations designates as a Small Island Developing State (“SIDS”) and that share a variety of often dire social, economic, and environmental challenges including many from our climate crisis. Abate fear covered their faces as the youth from Seychelles discussed their worries over their nation’s 115 islands being swallowed by rising seas during their lifetimes, forcing them to become climate refugees as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

I think of those children’s stories often and they were most certainly on my mind every day last month when I had the honor of traveling to Bonn, Germany, to spend over three weeks participating in the 62nd session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), serving as a delegate for another Small Island Developing State, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). The SB meetings are meant to be technical, forward-moving, and crucial moments that pave the way for the important global decisions that take place at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP)—in this case, COP30 later this year in Belem, Brazil.

Unfortunately, what I witnessed up close was not the steady progress that SIDS like FSM (and the rest of the world) so desperately need. Instead, I saw repeated delays, deep fractures between developed and developing nations, and worrying signs that some developed countries want to sideline or overlook science altogether.

Here are my four main takeaways from my time in Bonn:

1. The United States Was NOWHERE To Be Found

In a year where the world is on the brink of breaching the 1.5°C threshold, the absence of the United States delegation was both glaring and deeply concerning, while not entirely surprising. As one of the world’s largest historical pollution emitters, its absence sent a powerful, discouraging, and embarrassing message.

For countries like FSM (or even regions like South Florida within the U.S. itself) facing existential threats from sea level rise, the U.S.’s lack of participation is more than symbolic. It undermines trust and weakens collective momentum. Leadership doesn’t work on autopilot, and in Bonn, the silence from the U.S. was deafening.

2. Wealthy Nations Repeatedly Blocked Progress

Time and again, wealthy developed countries voiced their commitment to achieving the Paris Agreement goals, only to stall or block progress in concrete negotiations. The hypocrisy was evident across several agenda items, especially those tied to finance, loss and damage, and the need for a just transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy.

Developed countries also overtly pushed back on language that would hold them accountable for funding adaptation or financing clean energy transitions in the Global South. It became clear that while they were willing to talk about ambition and the need for solutions, they’re not yet willing to pay for it.

3. Over 50 Agenda Items, Little Consensus 

SB62 had more than 50 active agenda items, yet very few were resolved. Instead of adopting texts or making decisions, many negotiations ended in a stalemate, with documents simply “forwarded” to the next set of such meetings at COP30 in Belem.

That’s a bureaucratic way of saying “we’ll deal with it later.” From the Global Goal on Adaptation to climate finance frameworks and just transition pathways, many of the most pressing issues failed to advance, and the “can,” as they say, was just “kicked down the road.” This kind of delay is not neutral; it actively harms countries and regions on the frontlines of the climate crisis by postponing the support and action that we need to urgently take and make now.

4. Obvious Attempts To Sideline Science

The Global Stocktake (GST) was established under the Paris Agreement as an ongoing review of the world’s progress towards meeting our collective climate goals. It’s designed to be a scientifically based report card of sorts to evaluate our progress and identify areas needing adjustment so as to meet our goals. The Stocktake’s “report card” is based on scientific findings and analyses from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), published in 2021, was based on the research of over 700 experts from 90 countries. Work on the next scientific climate assessment, AR7, began in 2023, and the plan is that its two Methodology Reports will be published in 2027, followed by its Synthesis Report in 2029.

Perhaps the most disturbing development I observed firsthand last month was a push by some countries to decouple the next Global Stocktake (GST2) from the upcoming IPCC AR7. This would deliberately weaken and diminish the role of science in shaping future climate action and transparency. Just like tobacco manufacturers spent decades covering up the truth that smoking is deadly to your health, the world’s oil and gas-producing nations would love to remove/reduce the scientific facts that tell us fossil fuel use is warming our planet from the climate debate.  

Let’s be clear: the IPCC research and reporting are the worldwide gold standard of climate science. Ignoring AR7 during the GST2 process or weakening the science would make it easier for some nations to downplay their responsibilities, avoid stronger ambition, and continue business as usual regarding fossil fuel production and use. It’s a deeply cynical strategic move designed to prolong fossil fuel production, and those of us who value science, justice, and urgency must fight against it with all of our might.

Bonn should have been a stepping stone to progress this year in Brazil at COP30. Instead, it often felt like a holding pattern—one where the stakes were too high to wait, but action was lost amongst a lack of commitment that seemed intentional. For FSM and other small island developing states, like my friends in the Seychelles or closer-to-home places like the Florida Keys in South Florida, this process is not about politics but survival. It’s about whether our homes, cultures, and future will exist in the decades to soon come.

The world must do better as we look forward to COP30 in the Amazon. Developed nations must show up—not just physically but financially and politically. Science must remain at the heart of this process and every decision. And, above all, the voices of vulnerable nations and regions must be heard and acted upon, not delayed, deflected, or denied.

Delay is denial, and our warming climate can no longer wait.