COP31 Risks Becoming the 'Overshoot COP', CIEL Warns

Church cautioned that leaning heavily on such technologies carries environmental and human rights risks where large-scale interventions affect land, water, biodiversity and communities.

"We cannot allow 'overshoot and return' to become the new language of delay, or open the door to dangerous carbon dioxide removal technologies that would cause profound harm to ecosystems, risk undermining the rights of billions of people and delay action to tackle the root causes of the crisis," she said.

Her position: carbon removal must supplement, never replace, cutting fossil fuel consumption at source.

Why 'ocean climate solutions' language matters

Church also flagged growing discussion of the oceans' role in climate regulation. She supports ocean protection but warned that vague phrases such as 'ocean climate solutions' could open the door to marine geoengineering — deliberate technological interventions in ocean systems intended to influence climate or boost carbon uptake.

Proposed approaches include ocean fertilisation, which adds nutrients to seawater to stimulate carbon-absorbing phytoplankton. Critics point to unpredictable consequences: disrupted marine food webs, biodiversity loss and altered ocean chemistry.

"We cannot allow vague terms like 'ocean climate solutions' which open the door to dangerous marine geoengineering schemes to become embedded in the process," Church said.

What does CIEL want on fossil fuels?

Duyck framed the test of COP31 differently: whether governments translate existing climate and human rights obligations into action rather than managing the consequences of weak ambition. His priorities:

• End the expansion of offshore oil and gas production
• Ensure electrification runs exclusively on renewable energy
• Place communities, human rights and climate justice at the centre of implementation
• Finance the transition so developing countries and vulnerable communities can take part without added burdens

"The world cannot afford an Overshoot COP that endorses the idea that governments have failed their legal obligations and that fails to lay out a path forward to target the root cause of this crisis," Duyck said. "The test of this Summit will not be whether governments can agree on how to manage a world beyond 1.5°C, but whether they are prepared to fulfil their existing legal obligations and turn them into action."

How big is the emissions gap?

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, commits countries to hold warming well below 2°C while pursuing 1.5°C. Current policies point to approximately 2.8°C of warming this century; full implementation of existing national pledges would still leave roughly 2.6°C. Those figures mark the distance between commitments and the cuts the Paris goals require.

Can the UN climate process itself be reformed?

Duyck called first-week discussions on strengthening the climate regime encouraging but insisted they must become concrete reforms. His proposals:

• Binding conflict-of-interest safeguards for negotiations
• Provisions allowing voting when consensus fails
• Stronger protections for public interest, scientific evidence and human rights over corporate influence

"Crucially, we also need this space to stop self-sabotaging. That means binding conflict-of-interest safeguards, voting when consensus can't be reached and putting people, science, and human rights ahead of corporate profit," he said.

CIEL also stressed civic space: protecting the participation of environmental campaigners, Indigenous Peoples, human rights defenders and civil society organisations, whose input grounds climate policy in the realities of affected communities.

What to watch before November 20

CIEL puts three questions before negotiators:

• Will likely overshoot of 1.5°C trigger stronger immediate cuts or weaken existing commitments?
• Will governments set clear safeguards around carbon dioxide removal and ocean-based interventions?
• Will countries commit to a legally grounded, financed, equitable fossil fuel transition while strengthening transparency and civil society participation?

CIEL argues the second week must not become an exercise in accepting higher temperatures and managing consequences. Deeper emissions cuts, renewable deployment, adequate financing and respect for human rights should carry the agenda — with 1.5°C remaining the guiding benchmark even as governments confront the possibility of temporarily exceeding it.