🔗 Share this article

Our planet isn't prevailing in the struggle to combat the climate crisis, yet it remains involved in that effort, the United Nations' climate leader stated in the Brazilian city of Belém after a contentious UN climate conference concluded with a deal.

Significant Developments from the Climate Summit

Countries participating in the summit were unable to put an end on the era of fossil fuels, amid strong opposition from a group of states spearheaded by the Saudi delegation. Additionally, they underdelivered on a central goal, forged at a conference held in the Amazon, to chart an end to clearing of woodlands.

However, amid a divided global era of nationalism, war, and distrust, the talks did not collapse as many had worried. International cooperation prevailed – by a narrow margin.

“We knew this conference was scheduled in turbulent geopolitical conditions,” stated the UN’s climate chief, after a extended and at times heated final plenary at the conference. “Denial, division and international politics has dealt global collaboration some heavy blows over the past year.”

Yet the summit showed that “climate cooperation remains active”, Stiell added, alluding indirectly to the United States, which during the Trump administration opted to refrain from sending a delegation to Belém. The former US leader, who has called the global warming a “hoax” and a “con job”, has come to embody the opposition to progress on dealing with harmful planet warming.

“I cannot claim we are prevailing in the battle against climate change. But we are undeniably still engaged, and we are pushing forward,” he said.

“Here in Belém, nations opted for cohesion, scientific evidence and sound economic principles. Recently there has been significant focus on one country stepping back. Yet despite the intense political opposition, the vast majority of nations remained resolute in unity – unshakable in backing of environmental collaboration.”

The climate chief highlighted one section of the summit's final text: “The global transition to reduced carbon output and climate-resilient development is irreversible and the trend of the future.” He argued: “This represents a diplomatic and market message that cannot be ignored.”

Talks Overview

The conference commenced more than a fortnight ago with the leaders’ summit. The Brazilian hosts vowed with initial positive outlook that it would finish on time, but as the discussions went on, the uncertainty and obvious divisions between parties increased, and the process seemed on the verge of failure on Friday. Late-night talks on Friday, however, and compromise on all sides resulted in a deal could be agreed on Saturday. The summit yielded decisions on multiple topics, such as a commitment to increase financial support for adaptation threefold to safeguard populations from climate impacts, an accord for a just transition mechanism (JTM), and recognition of the entitlements of native communities.

Nevertheless proposals to start planning strategic plans to transition away from oil, gas, and coal and end deforestation did not gain consensus, and were hived off to processes beyond the United Nations to be pushed forward by alliances of interested countries. The effects of the agricultural sector – for example livestock in deforested areas in the rainforest – were mostly overlooked.

Feedback and Concerns

The overall package was generally viewed as minimal progress at best, and significantly short than required to tackle the worsening climate crisis. “Cop30 started with a bang of ambition but concluded with a whimper of disappointment,” commented Jasper Inventor from Greenpeace International. “This was the opportunity to transition from negotiations to implementation – and it was missed.”

The head of the United Nations, António Guterres, said advances were achieved, but warned it was becoming more difficult to reach consensus. “Climate conferences are dependent on unanimous agreement – and in a time of geopolitical divides, unanimity is increasingly difficult to reach. It would be dishonest to claim that this conference has provided everything that is needed. The disparity from our current position and scientific requirements remains alarmingly large.”

The European Union's representative for the environment, Wopke Hoekstra, echoed the sense of satisfaction. “It is not perfect, but it is a significant advance in the correct path. The EU remained cohesive, fighting for high goals on environmental measures,” he remarked, even though that unity was severely challenged.

Merely achieving a pact was positive, said Anna Åberg from Chatham House. “A ‘Cop collapse’ would have been a big and harmful blow at the close of a year characterized by significant difficulties for international climate cooperation and multilateralism in general. It is encouraging that a deal was concluded in Belém, although numerous observers will – rightly – be dissatisfied with the level of ambition.”

But there was also significant discontent that, although adaptation finance had been promised, the target date had been pushed back to the year 2035. Mamadou Ndong Toure from Practical Action in Senegal, said: “Adaptation cannot be established on shrinking commitments; communities on the front lines need reliable, responsible assistance and a clear path to take action.”

Indigenous Rights and Fossil Fuel Controversies

In a comparable vein, while Brazil marketed Cop30 as the “Indigenous Cop” and the agreement acknowledged for the first time native communities' land rights and knowledge as a fundamental climate solution, there were nonetheless concerns that involvement was limited. “Despite being called as an inclusive summit … it became clear that Indigenous peoples remain left out from the negotiations,” said Emil Gualinga of the Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku.

Moreover there was disappointment that the final text had not referred directly to fossil fuels. a climate expert from the University of Exeter, observed: “Despite the host’s utmost attempts, Cop30 failed to get nations to consent to fossil fuel phase out. This shameful outcome is the consequence of short-sighted agendas and cynical politicking.”

Activism and Prospects Ahead

Following several years of these yearly international environmental conferences hosted by states with restrictive governments, there were bursts of colourful protest in the host city as civil society came back strongly. A major march with many thousands of protesters energized the midpoint of the summit and activists expressed their views in an otherwise dull, formal Belém conference centre.

“From protests by native groups at the venue to the over seventy thousand individuals who protested in the streets, there was a palpable sense of momentum that I haven’t felt for years,” remarked an activist leader from Fossil Free Media.

At least, noted watchers, a path ahead remains. Prof Michael Grubb from University College London, commented: “The damp squib of an outcome from the summit has underlined that a focus on the phasing out of fossil fuels is filled with diplomatic hurdles. Looking ahead to the next conference, the attention must be balanced by equal attention to the positive – the {huge economic potential|