mstay on the right track, even at the expense of indolence, lack of ambition, and rejection. The results of COP30 in Belem (Brazil), which ended on Saturday 22 November, can be summed up with this unsatisfactory balance, oscillating between great disappointment and some relief. Delegations from 194 countries reached an agreement, but it still fell short of expectations and the climate emergency.
In a multipolar world, characterized by increasing geopolitical and commercial tensions, where The United States, as the world’s leading power, is opposing climate change and when there is structural distrust between North and South, there will not be the necessary impetus to accelerate implementation of the commitments of the Paris Agreement, adopted ten years ago.
This can be seen as half-full, given that the line adopted by the United States during the administration of Donald Trump has not created a dynamic impetus to question the reality of climate change and the need for action. 194 countries have done so “reaffirmed by force” their commitment to multilateralism and the Paris Agreement. The worst can be avoided. Some progress has also been noted, such as increased financial efforts to support adaptation. But countries most vulnerable to heatwaves or flooding will have to settle for goals that can be interpreted at will.
Disappointment regarding COP30 is largely measured by its deadlock. In the bargaining game of negotiations, large developing countries, India and Saudi Arabia as leaders, have successfully maneuvered to save fossil fuels, the main source of greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union (EU) is ultimately isolated, along with Latin American countries, in defending its exit from coal, oil and gas.
The Twenty-Seven Countries can undoubtedly overcome the hesitancy in African and small island countries by agreeing to accelerate climate transition financing, to which European countries have been the main contributors. But the EU has been closed off to new financial demands from Southern countries since the start of negotiations, a stance that has offended Southern countries and poisoned other issues. The Old Continent is starting to take a hit: they don’t want to bear the burden alone after the United States defected, especially at a time of budget austerity and populist attacks on the transition.
The EU, rather than being on the defensive, is more interested in building new alliances with Africa, Latin American countries and small islands to regain its leadership on climate issues. A long-term job, but important to launch a new dynamic.
The negotiation process also needs to be rethought. COPs are the only forums that make climate the main agenda and where all countries can voice their opinions. The flip side of this: everyone defends their national priorities and development model. The purpose of COPs has evolved from negotiating agreements to implementing commitments. This implies that beyond alliances, we must seek to lead other countries, while being ambitious at home.
However, the COP only functions as a forum for voicing the wishes of a country, and cannot act beyond national decisions. But everyone should remember that when it comes to climate, no longer moving forward means going backwards. From this point of view, Belem is a missed opportunity.
