After three decades of global gatherings aimed at fostering consensus on climate action, the recently concluded COP30 in Belém, Brazil, is poised to be remembered as one of the most discordant.
Numerous nations expressed discontent when the summit concluded without any specific mention of fossil fuels, the primary driver of atmospheric warming. Conversely, other countries, particularly those with vested interests in fossil fuel production, considered this a victory.
The summit served as a stark reminder of the diminishing global consensus regarding strategies to address climate change.
Here are five key takeaways from what some observers have termed the “COP of truth.”
The overarching achievement of COP30 lies in the fact that the climate ‘ship’ remains afloat, signaling continued commitment to multilateral action.
However, numerous participants voiced dissatisfaction, citing a significant gap between their desired outcomes and the actual results.
Despite widespread appreciation for Brazil’s hospitality and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership, concerns arose regarding the summit’s management.
A divergence seemed apparent between President Lula’s aspirational goals for the meeting and COP President André Corrêa do Lago’s perception of what was realistically achievable.
Lula advocated for concrete roadmaps away from fossil fuels during discussions with world leaders preceding the official COP commencement.
This proposal gained traction among several nations, including the UK, and a subsequent campaign emerged to formally incorporate this roadmap into the negotiations.
However, Do Lago prioritized consensus above all else, recognizing that pushing the fossil fuel issue would inevitably disrupt the fragile accord.
While initial draft texts contained ambiguous references resembling a roadmap, these were ultimately removed and never reinstated.
Colombia, the European Union, and approximately 80 other nations attempted to introduce language signaling a decisive shift away from coal, oil, and gas.
In an attempt to build consensus, Do Lago convened a mutirão, a Brazilian-style group discussion.
This initiative, however, exacerbated existing tensions.
Negotiators from Arab countries refused to engage in discussions with those advocating for a transition away from fossil fuels.
Major oil-producing nations gave the EU short shrift.
“We formulate energy policy in our capital, not in yours,” the Saudi delegate reportedly told the EU, according to an observer.
The impasse proved insurmountable, pushing the talks to the brink of collapse.
Brazil proposed a face-saving compromise: the creation of roadmaps on deforestation and fossil fuels outside the formal COP framework.
These roadmaps were met with applause in the plenary halls, but their legal standing remains uncertain.
Despite being among the wealthiest nations within the Paris Agreement, this COP did not represent the European Union’s finest hour.
While advocating strongly for a fossil fuel roadmap, the EU found itself trapped on another aspect of the agreement.
The concept of tripling funding for climate adaptation was included in early drafts and survived into the final text.
The wording was intentionally vague to avoid EU objections, but the crucial “tripling” element remained.
Consequently, when the EU attempted to persuade developing nations to support a fossil fuel roadmap, it lacked leverage, as the tripling commitment was already secured.
“Overall, we are witnessing a European Union that has been cornered,” noted Li Shuo of the Asia Society, a seasoned observer of climate politics.
“This partly reflects the shifting global power dynamics, the rise of BASIC and BRICs countries, and the relative decline of the European Union.”
Despite EU dissent, they were compelled to accept the agreement, achieving minimal progress on the fossil fuel front, apart from shifting the tripling of finance from 2030 to 2035.
A recurring question throughout the two weeks of COP30 centered on the future of the ‘process’ itself.
Two prominent viewpoints emerged:
Skepticism regarding the practicality of transporting thousands of individuals across the globe to engage in debates over minute textual details within expansive, air-conditioned venues.
Criticism of crucial discussions concerning the future of global energy systems occurring in the early hours of the morning, involving sleep-deprived delegates.
While the COP format effectively facilitated the Paris Agreement, achieved a decade ago, numerous participants now believe it lacks a clear and compelling purpose.
“We cannot discard it entirely,” asserted Harjeet Singh, an activist with the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, in an interview with BBC News.
“However, it requires retrofitting. We will need processes outside this system to help complement what we have done so far.”
Amidst soaring energy costs and critical questions about achieving net-zero emissions, the COP process appears increasingly disconnected from the daily realities of billions worldwide.
Its reliance on consensus reflects a bygone era. The world has evolved.
Recognizing these concerns, Brazil sought to transform the event into an “implementation cop,” emphasizing the “energy agenda.” However, the precise meaning of these concepts remained ambiguous.
COP leaders are acutely aware of the need for a revised approach to maintain the conference’s relevance.
For the first time, global trade emerged as a central theme, with a coordinated effort to raise the issue in all negotiating sessions, according to veteran COP observer Alden Meyer of the climate think-tank E3G.
The connection to climate change may not be immediately obvious.
The underlying issue is the European Union’s plan to impose a border tax on carbon-intensive products like steel, fertilizer, cement, and aluminum, a move opposed by key trading partners, including China, India, and Saudi Arabia.
These nations argue that the “unilateral” measure unfairly disadvantages their exports by increasing their cost in European markets.
The Europeans maintain that the border tax aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and safeguard domestic producers already subject to carbon pricing.
They propose that trading partners implement their own emissions fees to avoid the border tax.
Economists generally support this approach, arguing that higher pollution costs incentivize the adoption of cleaner alternatives, albeit potentially leading to increased consumer prices.
The issue was addressed at COP30 through a compromise: further discussions at future climate talks, involving governments and organizations like the World Trade Organization.
China and the US, the world’s largest carbon emitters, exerted influence on COP30 in distinct ways.
President Donald Trump’s absence from the US emboldened his allies at the conference.
Russia played a more active role than usual, obstructing efforts to create climate roadmaps. While Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers predictably opposed curbing fossil fuels, China maintained a low profile, focusing on securing business deals.
Analysts suggest that China’s business activities will ultimately outweigh the US’s efforts to promote fossil fuels.
“China maintained a low political profile,” stated Li Shuo of the Asia Society.
“And they focused on making money in the real world.”
“Solar is the cheapest source of energy, and the long-term direction is very clear. China dominates in this sector, putting the US in a very difficult position.”
Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC’s Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.
Brazil’s convicted ex-president blames medication for tempering with his monitor under house arrest.
The former Brazilian president is suspected of damaging an ankle bracelet as part of an alleged escape plan.
A row over fossil fuels has broken out at COP30 but this is also likely to be a negotiating tactic.
Students played the roles of different countries, made speeches, and “negotiated” to strike deals.
India says it has met a key target of its previous climate action plan, but many say it needs to do more.