We are past the point of no return on climate.

The fourth consultation looked towards the future, while accelerating action to address some of today’s existential challenges. We considered the threat from a changing climate and discussed how better to protect our planet. The climate emergency and unchecked environmental degradation represent an existential threat to the world as we know it.

Just last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued an alarming report that showed climate impacts are already devastating every region of the world, but particularly developing countries and small island States. The session considered the irreversible impacts of the climate crisis, which could render some parts of the earth uninhabitable. We cannot allow the territories of some Member States of the United Nations to be diminished or even disappear because of rising sea levels.

We need urgent, transformative efforts to reduce and eliminate emissions, keep warming to 1.5°C, and build resilience against the impacts that are already happening through effective adaptation. G20 countries account for 80 per cent of global emissions and have a special responsibility to lead. We need a massive boost in technical and financial support to accelerate the phase-out of coal and create a just transition to renewable energy and green jobs. Wealthier countries must make good on their $100 billion climate finance commitment; adaptation finance must be doubled; and we must reform the eligibility system so the most vulnerable communities can access it.

We also considered the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic for our global health architecture, and for the response to future large-scale crises. It is well past time to embed long-term thinking into our systems, to improve global risk anticipation and foresight, and to take the interests of future generations seriously.

We heard strong support for the proposals in the Our Common Agenda report to think and act more robustly on behalf of future generations, and we look forward to working with you on developing these ideas along with the concept of the Emergency Platform that needs to be clarified among us.

This brings us to today’s debate, on international cooperation. Over the past two weeks, the state of multilateral cooperation has assumed even greater importance. We have been brought back to the foundational promise of the United Nations Charter — to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Many people around the world are asking how this could happen in the twenty-first century. How are we still staring into the nuclear abyss, as millions of people flee across borders and the most fundamental tenets of international law are trampled?

In the face of such developments, there is renewed pressure to consider whether global governance systems are fit for purpose, and how they could be improved. Even as we reconsider traditional threats to peace and security, we need to update these concepts for our more complex world, in which local threats may quickly become global, existential, and intergenerational.

The conflict in Ukraine could have serious global implications on several fronts. First, it will stretch humanitarian funding even thinner, increasing the suffering of many of the most vulnerable around the world. Second, it could indirectly increase global hunger. Ukraine is one of the world’s biggest sources of grain; the Russian Federation is the second, and the conflict could cause prices to spike. Third, this conflict is deeply linked with the climate crisis, demonstrating how our continued reliance on fossil fuels puts the global economy and energy security at the mercy of geopolitical shocks.

The economic impact of the war, particularly increased energy and food prices, will hit developing countries hardest. Many of these countries are already struggling to recover from the pandemic and deal with rising inflation and high interest rates. Around the world, weak institutions and a lack of accountability go hand-in-hand with both climate and security risks. And record military spending will not protect anyone from climate catastrophe.

Improving international cooperation must look at all non-traditional threats, together with cyber warfare, disinformation campaigns, the threats from weapons of mass destruction, and more. The Our Common Agenda report is a wake-up call about the risks we face and the dangerous fiction that the status quo is a viable option. But, you don’t need to read my report to wake up. You just need to look around.

The climate crisis has passed the point of no return — even though we had plenty of warning and could have acted earlier. Much of the impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic could have been prevented or mitigated. Instead, millions of people have died, hunger and poverty are rising, and the economic impact of the pandemic is still playing out.

A multifaceted war is raging in the heart of Europe, in violation of the United Nations Charter. We need a serious effort to improve global governance, manage risks and safeguard the global commons and global public goods. This is not only about the United Nations, or any other institution. It is about working together to solve our biggest problems, through existing structures if they are fit for purpose, and new or reinvigorated frameworks where needed.

Failure to do so increases the likelihood that our children, or their children, are forced to rebuild the international order in the aftermath of catastrophe. I have therefore asked my High-Level Advisory Board on Global Public Goods to provide us with concrete recommendations for improved global governance. I am delighted that former President of Liberia Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and former Prime Minister of Sweden Stefan Löfven have accepted my invitation to co-lead this Advisory Board.

I have asked the Board to build on the ideas in the report on Our Common Agenda, as well as on the consultations undertaken during the UN75 process and the preparation of the report, and these recent discussions led by the President of the General Assembly. I have also asked the Board to make their recommendations in light of existing institutional and legal arrangements, bearing in mind the strong calls we have heard not to duplicate or supplant arrangements that are working well.

The Board will consider governance gaps, emerging priorities and levels of urgency, as well as relevant deliberations under the other tracks leading to the proposed intergovernmental Summit of the Future in September 2023. I have asked them specifically to seek equity and fairness in global decision-making, as well as approaches that are more networked, more inclusive, and above all, more effective. Board members will be independent and will bring their own considerable experience to bear on these essential questions. I hope that their recommendations will enrich discussions at the proposed Summit of the Future.