The COP30 United Nations climate summit, held recently in Belém, Brazil, concluded amid intense disputes and controversy, ultimately producing a deal that notably lacks any explicit mention of fossil fuels—the primary drivers of global warming. This outcome has left many countries frustrated, particularly more than 80 nations including the UK and the European Union, which had pushed for a clear, accelerated commitment to phase out the use of oil, coal, and gas. However, oil-producing countries maintained firm opposition, insisting on their right to continue exploiting fossil fuel resources to support their economic growth.
The timing of the summit was critical. The UN has expressed serious concerns that global efforts to limit the rise in average temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—a target widely seen as essential to avoiding catastrophic climate impacts—are faltering. Against this backdrop, the summit’s failure to secure stronger language on fossil fuel reduction was a significant setback for climate activists and many vulnerable nations.
Tensions flared during the final plenary session on Saturday, where Colombia’s climate delegate Daniela Durán González voiced sharp criticism of the COP presidency for not allowing countries to formally object to the final agreement. She stressed the scientific consensus that over 75% of greenhouse gas emissions stem from fossil fuels and argued that the international climate convention must confront this reality directly. Her frustration highlighted the deep divisions within the negotiations, as well as the challenges in achieving a unified global response to climate change.
The final agreement, known as the Mutirão, falls short of binding commitments. Instead, it calls upon countries to "voluntarily" accelerate their efforts to reduce fossil fuel use—a vague and non-binding phrasing that disappointed many delegates. Compounding the challenges was the notable absence of the United States, which did not send a delegation for the first time. This followed President Donald Trump’s previous declaration that the US would withdraw from the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, dismissing climate change as "a con". The absence of the US was widely seen as a major blow to the negotiations.
Jennifer Morgan, a veteran climate negotiator and former German climate envoy, told the BBC that the US absence created a significant "hole" in the talks. Historically, the US has often aligned with blocs like the EU and UK to push for climate action. Without the US to help counterbalance the influence of oil-producing countries, Morgan said the negotiations, especially during the intense 12-hour overnight sessions where fossil fuel exporters pushed back hard, proved particularly difficult.
Despite the setbacks, many countries expressed relief that the talks did not collapse entirely or result in a rollback of existing climate commitments. Antigua and Barbuda’s Climate Ambassador Ruleta Thomas emphasized the importance of having a functioning process where every country’s voice can still be heard. This sentiment was echoed by other delegates who recognized that maintaining the integrity of the global climate process, even if imperfect, was crucial.
Oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia reiterated their position that each country must be allowed to chart its own development path based on its unique economic circumstances. Saudi representatives argued that they should have the right to continue exploiting fossil fuel reserves just as developed countries have done historically. This stance underscored one of the core tensions at the summit: balancing development needs and economic growth against urgent climate action.
The two weeks of negotiations in Belém were marked by logistical and environmental challenges. Delegates faced severe weather, including torrential rainstorms that flooded the venue, and infrastructure problems such as water shortages in toilets. The atmosphere was often chaotic, with around 50,000 registered participants evacuated twice due to safety concerns. Additionally, about 150 protesters managed to breach security lines inside the venue, carrying signs demanding protection of forests and opposing commodification of natural resources. A large fire also broke out at the site, scorching part of the roof and forcing an emergency evacuation.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva chose Belém, a city on the edge of the Amazon rainforest, as the summit location to spotlight the critical importance of preserving the Amazon and to attract investment to the region. Brazil launched a new initiative called the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, aimed at funding efforts to protect tropical forests. By the end of the summit, this fund had raised at least $6.5 billion from governments, although the UK had yet to pledge any contributions.
Despite its stated ambition to foster stronger fossil fuel agreements, Brazil faced criticism for its own plans to increase offshore oil and gas drilling near the Amazon. Analysis shared by the campaign group Global