In Belém, in the sweltering heat of the Amazon, when the COP30 presidential gavel sounded André Correa do Lago he banged on the wood, the plenary session erupted in applause of relief. After two weeks of painstaking negotiations, nearly two hundred countries present adopted by consensus a treaty that should mark a new chapter in the fight against global warming. But beneath the celebrations, there is a lingering feeling: diplomacy has kept the multilateral process afloat, but the substance of the agreements still falls far short of the level of ambition raised by science and much of the international community. This is demonstrated by the fact that, despite the efforts of the European Union and more than eighty countries, in the final text there is no reference to the phasing out of fossil fuels.
The essence of the agreement is contained in “Mutirão Global Decision”a document that explicitly recognizes the inadequacy of current policy to maintain the +1.5°C target. To overcome this gap, The Brazilian Presidency has introduced a new voluntary initiative dedicated to accelerating the implementation of national commitmentswhich aims to bridge the gap between what countries announce and what they actually do. Next to this is “Belem Mission 1.5”an institutional pathway that should help governments and technical bodies to deliver on their promises to reduce emissions. It is a tool designed to give concrete shape to an agenda that, at least on paper, remains oriented towards climate stabilization. However, neither of these two things can reveal the political knot of the energy transition.
It was precisely on this issue that the most difficult battle took place. The European Union has clearly announced that it will not accept the draft law without explicit reference to the need to make changes beyond oil, gas and coal.. His negotiators, along with a broad coalition of vulnerable countries and those in favor of rapid decarbonization, insisted until the end on including language that would outline a clear path to abandoning fossil fuels. But resistance from major producers – led by Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and other members of the bloc who view the transition as an economic and political risk – has been impenetrable. Already in the penultimate draft, the most powerful formulation was removedThis sparked official protests from island nations and groups of countries that depend on coastal borders for survival.
In the end, Brussels gave in. Faced with the real risk that the entire negotiations would fail, many European diplomats acknowledged, albeit with some frustration, that a weak deal is better than none. The failure to get the word out – “fossil” – points to an important truth of the multilateral process: without consensus, no progress is possibleand the need to include countries whose wealth rests on hydrocarbons continues to place strict limits on collective ambition.
In the area of climate change finance, the trade-offs are equally complex. The final text calls for global adaptation funding to be tripled by 2030 from 2025 levels. This is an important political goal, but does not contain binding figures or define burden sharing. Estimates circulated during the COP, which calculated a threefold increase to around 120 billion dollars per year, were not included in the decision. There are political differences even before technical differences: many vulnerable countries have highlighted that without measurable commitments, the risks they face will be greater.another ambitious goal on paper but without real implementation mechanisms. Moreover, the set year – 2030 – marks an acceleration compared to draft laws circulated in previous days, but is still late compared to the most pressing demands in the countries of the South.
