Subscribe
The United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Belém, known as COP30, was heralded as a potentially decisive moment for global climate governance. The choice of the Amazonian city was interpreted as a symbolic reminder of the need to protect one of the planet’s most important climate regulators. However, international political tensions, divergences between countries with differing economic interests, and the complexity of the negotiation process resulted in a profoundly different outcome. Among the factors that contributed to complicating the conference was the absence of the United States from the negotiating table, a consequence of the Trump administration’s withdrawal from climate cooperation. Faced with these difficulties, the diplomatic authority of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva failed to provide the necessary impetus to reach a meaningful agreement.
THE FAILURE TO REACH AGREEMENT ON FOSSIL FUELS
The most controversial point of the negotiations concerned the possibility of including a roadmap for the gradual abandonment of fossil fuels. Although this objective was not initially included in the official agenda, pressure from numerous governments, particularly European ones, quickly made the issue a major concern. Over ninety countries had expressed support for the introduction of a non-binding framework that would allow each nation to independently define its own energy transition path. However, in the final hours of the summit, all explicit references to fossil fuels were removed from the final document due to the staunch opposition of hydrocarbon-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The position of these states, supported by a broader front that also included several BRICS members, prevented the establishment of a common goal and highlighted a significant shift in the global geopolitical balance.
THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE NEW ISOLATION OF WESTERN CLIMATE AMBITIONS
In this context of growing tensions, the European Union attempted until the very end to defend a more ambitious approach to mitigating the climate crisis. The bloc of twenty-seven even threatened to block approval of the final text, which, according to COP rules, requires unanimity from nearly two hundred delegations. Ultimately, the EU opted to support the document, while acknowledging its weaknesses, knowing that a formal rupture would further compromise the multilateral process. The gap between European positions and those of the petrostates appeared wider than in the past, especially in the absence of a traditional ally like the United States. Subsequent analyses indicated that the fierce opposition of fossil fuel-exporting countries blocked the possibility of even moving toward a general framework for the phase-out of fossil fuels, repeating dynamics already seen at previous conferences but with even greater intensity.
CLIMATE DISINFORMATION
One of the few areas where COP30 achieved full consensus concerns the need to counter climate disinformation. For the first time, participating states formally recognized the importance of information integrity for effective climate action. This represents a significant step in safeguarding climate science and protecting public debate from manipulation and private interests, particularly the influence exerted by major technology and advertising companies. Several observers interpreted this result as a significant political signal, strengthening the collective commitment to transparency and democratic accountability.
DEFORESTATION AND THE AMAZON PARADOX: A SACRIFICED ISSUE
Despite the geographical location of COP30, deforestation failed to occupy a central place in the final text. The Brazilian Environment Minister’s attempt to include a roadmap to halt forest destruction failed when the topic was linked to the fossil fuel roadmap, which was also rejected by petrostates. To compensate at least partially for this shortcoming, Brazil presented an international fund for the protection of tropical forests, supported by preliminary commitments from Germany and Norway. The initiative, although outside the UN process, represents a potential financial platform to support countries that maintain intact forest ecosystems.
FINANCING FOR ADAPTATION
On the climate adaptation front, the conference produced a commitment to triple funding for developing countries, a more ambitious goal than previous decisions. However, the scale of the resources required and the timeframes set raise questions about the adequacy of the response given the growing severity of climate impacts. The target of reaching $120 billion annually has been postponed to 2035, a delay deemed by many observers inconsistent with the urgency of the situation and a lack of solidarity with communities already affected by extreme events.
FUTURE PROSPECTS AND OPEN CHALLENGES
At the end of COP30, the UN Secretary-General acknowledged some progress, while admitting that the gap between current actions and what science suggests remains extremely wide. In the coming months, Brazil will seek to maintain a high level of focus on protecting forests and building global decarbonization pathways, including through the energy transition conference scheduled for April. The subsequent COP31 in Turkey will represent a new test to determine whether the international community is capable of overcoming the current impasses. In light of the Belém outcome, however, the outlook appears uncertain, and the path toward a more binding global agreement aligned with the 1.5°C goal remains extremely fraught with obstacles.