How COP30 in Belém ended and why it was a bitter disappointment
Environment — di Andrea Barolini
A flat, watered-down compromise. COP30 on climate failed to meet expectations and ended with mutual recriminations between governments.
How COP30 in Belém ended and why it was a bitter disappointment
A flat, watered-down compromise. COP30 on climate failed to meet expectations and ended with mutual recriminations between governments.
A mixture of disappointment and disbelief, against a chaotic backdrop of mutual recriminations and backs turned on one another. The thirtieth United Nations World Climate Conference, COP30, which closed on Saturday 22 November in Belém, Brazil, was above all a cold shower — especially given how it had started and the promising first week of proceedings.
Fossil fuels left out of COP30's final decision
Brazil's president Lula had set the bar very, very high, putting forward something that had seemed beyond hope: a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels. A way to finally give substance, two years on, to the ultra-interpretable (and therefore weak) phrase that had been approved at the end of COP28 in Dubai in 2023 — the now-famous transitioning away from fossil fuels — through a mutirão, translatable from Portuguese as a collective mobilisation.
Yet just two days before the end of negotiations at COP30, to everyone's great astonishment, the latest draft presented by the Brazilian presidency of André Correa do Lago not only contained no roadmap whatsoever, but no longer even mentioned fossil fuels. The words had simply vanished — a sign of the impossibility of reaching any kind of compromise between governments, even a watered-down one.
#COP30 🔴 When fossil fuel lobbyists write the rules, climate action stalls.
It's time for clear conflict-of-interest policies, public registries of meetings, and inclusive decision-making. Read our latest report ⬇️ anticorru.pt/3fs #COP30
It's time for clear conflict-of-interest policies, public registries of meetings, and inclusive decision-making. Read our latest report ⬇️ anticorru.pt/3fs #COP30
A decision so surprising that it even gave rise to suspicions it might be a tactical move. From the very first day, moreover, the COP30 presidency had broken a series of protocols in its bid to reach a result (and it must be said that in this respect it had shown a genuine willingness to try to make the conference a success). The reality, however, was something else entirely: the world remains too divided over coal, oil and gas. The world is not unanimous in wanting to consider fossil fuels the single most effective lever for resolving the climate crisis. The world is not ready to listen to science.
The first week of proceedings, the illusions and the cold shower
The first week of COP30 was, therefore, an illusion — not only for observers and journalists, but even for many negotiators from nations vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The publication of a draft devoid of any mention of fossil fuels thus provoked an indignant reaction from numerous delegations — even from the European Union: the "even" is warranted given that, at the G20 in South Africa, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen had indulged in a poor piece of verbal acrobatics, declaring that "we are not fighting against fossil fuels, but against emissions."
The final #COP30 agreement didn't mention fossil fuels. But the COP President did — loud and clear.
In his closing statement, he announced plans to form a working group to create the world's first fossil-fuel transition roadmap, fully guided by science.
And he went even further:
In his closing statement, he announced plans to form a working group to create the world's first fossil-fuel transition roadmap, fully guided by science.
And he went even further:
Meanwhile, from the corridors of COP30 came the "names" of those who had sought to "save" coal, oil and gas. The Arab Group, first and foremost — which indeed stated as much in plain terms in a communiqué. And then India and Russia. But China, too, appears to have given only lukewarm support to Brazil, despite being a fellow BRICS member.
Shields raised and mutual recriminations at COP30's closing plenary
On the other side, at the forefront of those who banged their fists on the table were the world's poorest nations (from the LDC group), the island states (from the AOSIS group), and above all Colombia — which in the end even announced its intention to organise a kind of counter-COP in April, inviting all the nations that genuinely do want that roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels. A politically laudable initiative, but one that will have limited concrete impact even if it succeeds. The reality, after all, is that without the United States (also absent from COP30), China, India and Russia, it is impossible to act effectively to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
In the end, Cop30 closed with a plenary session where things got truly heated. Like a forced family gathering in which everyone puts on a brave face until someone finally snaps, triggering a domino effect — in that concluding session, no one held back. Even Correa do Lago himself was accused of having closed the conference without allowing everyone to have their say: the result was a lengthy suspension of proceedings and further outrage from more than a few delegations.
The Global Implementation Accelerator adopted, but on a voluntary basis
That said, the Belém conference did achieve something. For instance, a Global Implementation Accelerator was launched — a new mechanism aimed at making the Paris Agreement operational. However, it is stated in no uncertain terms that this is a "cooperative, facilitative" and, above all, "voluntary" initiative. Which enormously limits its scope.
The final text also references in multiple places the goal of limiting the rise in average global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century compared to pre-industrial levels. One might ask: and that counts as a success? The answer is yes — because among the early draft "options" there was also one calling for a reference to "the entire Paris Agreement", which speaks of staying "well below 2 degrees, while pursuing efforts to keep as close as possible to 1.5". These may seem like minor details, but in Cop negotiations they represent substantial differences.
Adaptation, the "Belém Mission to 1.5", just transition: the other issues on the table
The final Cop30 document also reaffirms the doubling of capital granted to developing countries for adaptation (something that, however, had already been decided in 2021) and calls for "efforts to at least triple adaptation financing by 2035" (though previous versions referred to 2030…). A clause was also inserted — "Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that leads to sustainable economic growth and development, particularly in developing countries" — which is a clear reference to the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which much of the rest of the world has found hard to swallow.
The text also "recognises that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius requires deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 43 per cent by 2030 and 60 per cent by 2035, relative to 2019 levels, as well as reaching net zero CO2 emissions by 2050". Here again, this is simply a reiteration of what had already been set out in the Global stocktake adopted at Cop28 in Dubai in 2023.
COP30 TEXT ANALYSIS: One way to read dense COP text is to focus on the verbs. These are helpfully italicised – and for good reason.
MOSTLY INACTIVE: Carbon Brief analysis of the "global mutirão" text finds 69 inactive verbs, requiring no action, against 32 active verbs.
1/4
MOSTLY INACTIVE: Carbon Brief analysis of the "global mutirão" text finds 69 inactive verbs, requiring no action, against 32 active verbs.
1/4
A "Belém Mission to 1.5" was also launched, which is intended to help bolster ambition both in individual governments' pledges and in adaptation plans. No details are provided, however, on how it will actually work. The idea of establishing a Just Transition mechanism to strengthen international cooperation for a fair transition was also accepted. Governments were then called to account, with requests to improve their climate emissions reduction pledges — the Nationally Determined Contributions — which have so far fallen far short of what is needed.
The absence of a shared value system in the world
Far, far too little to be satisfied with — and not to speak of an outright failure, one that has even called into question the process built around multilateralism. And while improvements to the negotiating and (above all) deliberative system of the Cops may certainly be welcome, one crucial, central factor must never be forgotten: the fact that what is driving the world in a direction where no one wants to give up their gains, their vested interests or their own "patch" is our economic system.
Even the European Union, which has been a strong advocate on climate change mitigation, was far less forthcoming when it came to discussing adaptation funds for developing countries. The reality is that every nation (or group of nations) looks out for itself. Because that, in practice, is the mandate of governments: to protect their own privileges above all else.
We can organise counter-Cops, reform the negotiations, imagine new rules. But until there is a cultural shift, starting from the economic paradigm itself, there can be no shared political will.