Practicalities and Principles of Consensus: Why the G7 Struggles with Climate Change

The tensions between the practicalities of consensus, including accommodating certain members' views, and the principle of addressing current, global crises based on shared values have been particularly clear at the G7 this year. 

As a Y7 representative of UK youth on ecological crises to the G7, I was selected to represent the views of young people from the UK about ecological and climate crises to G7 leaders. I drafted the final communiqué document alongside 7 other highly skilled national representatives, which was presented to each country’s embassy, and to heads of state including President Macron. Thus, I was surprised to learn, not from the G7 or Y7 organisation themselves but from a Reuters article, that climate change had been removed from the G7’s agenda.

This was justified in an official press conference given by Monique Barbut, the French Environment Minister, as a ‘practical’ change, or as a way to stop ‘certain partners’ (meaning the United States) from walking away from negotiations. Though several statements covered ocean protection and biodiversity, climate change is not mentioned. It was particularly ironic to me that the G7 would entirely fund and host a youth engagement group on ‘fighting the polycrisis’ only to remove a key global crisis from discussion. 

The removal of climate comes as no surprise

Since its formation during the Cold War, shared ideology and values was, and still is, the unofficial criteria of G7 membership. The G7’sfinal communiqué is a joint statement, based on consensual agreement by all members. I can speak from my own Y7 experience on the stress placed on consensus. Presenting a consensual stance to world leaders is paramount, so serious that the entire negotiating table was awake until 3am trying to agree on a few bullet points. Any proposal that is not affirmed by every member, regardless of how well-written, is watered down or scrapped. 

It comes as little surprise then that climate has been removed from the agenda due to pressure from the United States. The Trump administration has been rolling back environmental protection, including the2009 endangerment finding which underpins much of the USA’s environmental legislation. President Trump has further labelled carbon footprints a ‘hoax’ and green energy a ‘scam’ before the United Nations Assembly. If the G7 must cooperate with the United States, then removing climate change becomes a logical concession. There is a clear clash between the practical need for all members to be present and agreeable, and the principle of shared concerns and ideology. Though practicality is prioritised, the decision is also politically revealing of the G7’s relationship priorities centring the United States and the status of climate in international negotiations.

The United States has repeatedly hindered the G7

The influence of the Americans in negotiations is unsurprisingly substantial. It is clear with the expulsion of Russia in 2014that the G7 is not above removing members who, though a core player in several global issues, are politically misaligned. Maintaining at least a working relationship with the United States is perceived as ‘must’ among G7 participants even over crucial, widely-accepted problems. The significance of the United States to the G7’s real legitimacy to coordinate and suggest solutions takes precedence.

However, as a delegate representing ecological and climate issues, I cannot help but notice that this is the second time climate has been removed to soothe this relationship. The United States has disagreed with its allies for many reasons, one example being the recent conflict in Iran. As a result of allies' supposed lack of support during the American campaign, President Trump has publicly criticised and threatened other nations. However, discussions of Iran remain on the table, climate does not. To the credit of G7 sherpa teams, impacts and solutions have been implied without explicit mention of climate change. However, it remains unchanged that the Trump administration has now used the US’s leverage to severely limit international alignment on climate change, twice. 

One of the opening points of the Ecological Crises section of the Y7 communiqué is the importance of standing climate policy on equal footing with economic, geopolitical and technological planning. These areas crossed over each other more times than I could count during negotiations. Climate is not an expendable, luxury policy, but a core part of a polycrisis which will have significant impacts on our future.

Consensus is no longer a reality

The legitimacy and efficiency of the G7 has been under scrutiny for years, with scholars citing its lack of representativeness and unfair geopolitical dynamic. A multitude of alternate conceptions of a G-type conference have been put forward as a result. A G6 organisation, excluding the US, has been floated as one such idea, although it's understandable that no country would want to be seen leading such an alliance. Other possible rearrangements into a G2,G3, or even a G-zero in which no country has any political or economic leverage, have all been suggested, or a complete takeover by the G20.

What solutions don’t fully consider is that it is the structure of the negotiations, consensus itself, that is causing faults to appear. At the point where coming to a complete consensus means eliminating core global issues, consensus has outlived its value as a negotiation tool. If the practicalities of achieving consensus begin to work against the purpose of consensus, which is to unify on shared concerns and policy, it severely questions the effectiveness of consensus diplomacy in this context. In other words, if the G7 is at best contingent on and at worst destabilised by any of its members, especially its most essential player, consensus is, shown in the2025 lack of communiqué, impossible. 

The G7 should not disappear entirely. There’s an equally strong counter-argument that the G7 will continue to be relevant, especially as other rising partners such as South Korea are brought in. However, speaking on climate policy to leaders who are not willing to even listen is immensely frustrating. Without binding agreements on the conduct of members, organisations such as the G7 will compromise their principles repeatedly to retain their most powerful players, and thus fail produce genuine outcomes at all. 

Instead, if the G7 wishes to continue to negotiate current and controversial issues without isolating any member in particular, the use of consensus vote must be reconsidered. While core agenda items have always been decided by the host country, calling for a simple majority vote to add or remove major items would prevent any country making autocratic changes by exploiting their geopolitical weight. Though this will inevitably produce outcomes that don’t exactly suit every country’s goal, this is certainly better than an incomplete or non-existent communiqué.

In the interests of public debate, BFPG invites external contributors to write for our website. BFPG believes that the voices of young people are important to this broader debate. The views expressed by these contributors and in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily represent those of BFPG.