The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, concluded as one of the most contentious in its three-decade history. The summit ended without direct mention of fossil fuels in its final agreement, a point of strong dissatisfaction for some nations and validation for others, particularly those reliant on their continued production. The outcome underscored existing global divergences on climate change action.
Brazil's Role and Conference Management
While many participants expressed appreciation for Brazil and President Luiz InĂ¡cio Lula da Silva, there was reported dissatisfaction regarding the management of the conference. A discrepancy was noted between President Lula's stated objectives, which included roadmaps away from fossil fuels, and COP President AndrĂ© CorrĂªa do Lago's assessment of achievable consensus. President do Lago prioritized consensus, viewing direct confrontation on fossil fuels as a risk to the negotiations.
Initial drafts of the agreement included general references to pathways, but these were subsequently removed. Efforts by countries including Colombia and the European Union, alongside approximately 80 other nations, to incorporate stronger language for phasing out coal, oil, and gas did not achieve consensus. A Brazilian group discussion model, a "mutirĂ£o," was convened but did not resolve disagreements. Negotiators from Arab countries declined to participate in discussions with those advocating for fossil fuel reduction. A Saudi delegate reportedly stated, "We make energy policy in our capital not in yours," in a closed-door meeting with EU representatives.
Disagreements persisted, and negotiations faced significant challenges. Brazil proposed "roadmaps" on deforestation and fossil fuels outside the official COP agreement, which received applause but whose legal status remains undefined.
European Union's Outcomes at COP30
The European Union, as a significant bloc within the Paris Agreement, faced strategic challenges at COP30. While advocating for a fossil fuel roadmap, the EU's position on climate adaptation finance limited its negotiating flexibility. An early text commitment to tripling adaptation finance, with vague wording, remained in the final draft. Consequently, when the EU sought support from developing nations for a fossil fuel roadmap, it lacked additional incentives, as the adaptation finance commitment was already established.
Li Shuo, from the Asia Society, commented on the EU's situation, attributing it to a shift in global power towards BASIC and BRICS countries. Despite expressing strong objections, the EU accepted the agreement, which shifted the tripling of finance from 2030 to 2035, and made limited progress on fossil fuel reduction commitments.
Questioning the Future Relevance of COP
A recurrent theme at COP30 was the questioning of the conference process itself. Concerns were raised about the efficiency and practicality of large-scale, in-person conferences for detailed textual negotiations, as well as the timing and conditions of critical discussions, often held during late hours with fatigued delegates.
The COP framework facilitated the Paris Agreement a decade ago, but some participants now question its contemporary purpose and effectiveness. Harjeet Singh, an activist with the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, suggested that while the process cannot be discarded, it requires adaptation, and complementary processes outside the system may be necessary. The conference mechanism, designed for a different geopolitical context, is perceived by some as disconnected from the daily realities of global populations. Brazil attempted to position COP30 as an "implementation COP" with a focus on the "energy agenda," though the specific interpretations of these initiatives remained unclear. Conference leadership is reportedly seeking new approaches to maintain the conference's relevance.
Trade Policy's Emergence in Climate Discussions
For the first time, global trade policy became a central issue at the talks, with a coordinated effort to raise it in various negotiating rooms, as noted by Alden Meyer of the climate think-tank E3G. This development is linked to the European Union's plan to introduce a border tax on high-carbon products such as steel, fertilizer, cement, and aluminum.
Trading partners, including China, India, and Saudi Arabia, expressed opposition to this measure, viewing it as an unfair unilateral imposition that would increase the cost and reduce the competitiveness of their goods in European markets. The EU contends that the measure serves climate goals, aiming to cut planet-warming gases. They state that the border tax protects domestic producers, who are already charged for their emissions, from imports with lower environmental costs. The EU position suggests that other nations can avoid the border tax by implementing their own domestic carbon pricing mechanisms. Economists argue that this approach incentivizes cleaner energy alternatives, while acknowledging that this may result in higher consumer costs for products manufactured with polluting processes. The issue was addressed with a common COP approach: deferring detailed discussions to future sessions. The final agreement established an ongoing dialogue on trade for future UN climate talks, involving governments and organizations like the World Trade Organization.
US and China's Approaches and Outcomes
The world's two largest carbon emitters, China and the United States, influenced COP30 in distinct ways. US President Donald Trump's absence and stance influenced the positions of allied nations, with Russia, typically a less vocal participant, actively opposing roadmap initiatives. While major oil producers maintained their opposition to fossil fuel reduction mandates, China maintained a low political profile, focusing on economic agreements.
Experts suggest that China's focus on renewable energy development may yield greater long-term influence compared to US efforts in fossil fuel markets. Li Shuo noted that China prioritized "making money in the real world," stating that "Solar is the cheapest source of energy, and the long term direction is very clear, China dominates in this sector and that puts the US in a very difficult position."