The 30th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP30), held recently in Belém, Brazil, will likely be remembered as one of the most divisive gatherings in the three-decade history of these global meetings aimed at addressing climate change. Instead of forging consensus on crucial issues, the summit exposed deep fractures among nations on how to confront the climate crisis, particularly concerning the role of fossil fuels.
One of the most striking aspects of COP30 was the absence of any explicit mention of fossil fuels in the final agreement. This omission angered many countries that are pushing for urgent fossil fuel phase-outs to curb global warming. Conversely, nations heavily reliant on fossil fuel production felt vindicated by the lack of binding commitments to reduce coal, oil, and gas use. This divide underscored the growing challenges in achieving unified global action on climate change.
Despite the tensions, the conference did demonstrate that the “climate ship” remains afloat. However, many participants left frustrated and disappointed, feeling that the outcomes fell far short of what was needed to address the escalating climate emergency. While Brazil and its President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva received praise for hosting the event, criticism mounted over how the meeting was managed and the disconnect between leadership ambitions and political realities.
At the outset, President Lula expressed aspirations for COP30 to produce clear roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels. He shared this vision with select world leaders ahead of the official talks, sparking support from countries like the UK that pushed for these roadmaps to be included in formal negotiations. However, the COP30 President, André Corrêa do Lago, prioritized consensus above confrontation. He believed pressing fossil fuel issues directly in the negotiations would fracture the fragile unity among parties.
Initially, the draft agreement contained vague references hinting at a roadmap away from fossil fuels, but these were quickly removed in the final text. Attempts by Colombia, the European Union, and around 80 other nations to insert stronger language urging a phase-out of coal, oil, and gas were thwarted. Do Lago convened a “mutirão,” a Brazilian-style group discussion, to bridge divides, but this backfired. Negotiators from Arab countries declined to engage with those advocating fossil fuel phase-outs, and major producers like Saudi Arabia bluntly asserted their sovereignty over energy policy, telling others, “We make energy policy in our capital, not in yours.”
With no consensus in sight, the talks nearly collapsed. In a bid to salvage the summit, Brazil proposed creating separate “roadmaps” on deforestation and fossil fuels outside the official COP process. Though these parallel initiatives were applauded in plenary sessions, their legal status and binding power remain uncertain.
The European Union, historically a climate leader and major financial contributor to global climate initiatives, found itself in a difficult position. While vocally supporting a fossil fuel roadmap, the EU inadvertently hamstrung its own leverage by agreeing to vague language in the final text about tripling funds for climate adaptation in developing countries. This commitment, though imprecise, was already embedded in the agreement, leaving the EU little room to negotiate or offer incentives to developing nations in exchange for backing fossil fuel phase-out measures. Analysts highlighted this as emblematic of the EU’s declining influence in global climate politics amid the rising power of emerging economies like those in the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) and BRICS groups.
Throughout the two-week conference, a recurring question haunted delegates: What is the future of the COP process itself? Many criticized the logistical absurdities of flying thousands of delegates across the globe to sit in air-conditioned tents debating technicalities, often in the early hours of the morning after long periods away from home. While the COP framework succeeded in delivering the landmark Paris Agreement nearly a decade ago, many now feel it lacks clear direction, relevance, and the ability to drive urgent, tangible action.
Activists and observers suggest the COP system needs significant reform or “retrofitting” to stay effective, complemented by other mechanisms outside this formal process. The chasm between high-level negotiations and the everyday realities faced by billions of people dealing with energy costs and climate impacts remains wide. Brazil recognized these challenges and branded its summit an “implementation COP” with a focus on the “energy agenda,” though concrete outcomes on these fronts remain vague and uncertain.
A new feature of COP30 was the prominent role of global trade discussions. For the first time, trade policies became a central topic, driven largely by the