Trump, war, absent media: five threats to climate progress that dogged Cop30

Cop30 in Belém wrapped up on Saturday night more than 24 hours later than planned, and with an Amazonian rainstorm thundering down on the conference centre. The UN structure just about held, as it has done these past three weeks despite fire, savage tropical heat and blistering political attacks on the multilateral system of global environmental governance. Dozens of agreements were gavelled through on the final day, as the most collective form of humanity worked to resolve the most complex and dangerous challenge that our species has ever faced. It was chaotic. The process very nearly collapsed and had to be rescued by last-ditch talks that went on into the early morning. Veteran observers told me the Paris agreement was on life-support. But it survived. For now at least. The outcome was not nearly enough to limit global heating to 1.5C. There was a considerable shortfall in the finance needed for adaptation by the countries worst affected by extreme weather. The importance of rainforest protection barely got a mention even though this was the first climate summit in the Amazon. And the power balance in the world is still so skewed towards gas, oil and coal interests that there was not even a single mention of “fossil fuels” in the main agreement. Yet, for all these flaws, Belém opened up new avenues of discussion on how to reduce dependency on petrochemicals, and it increased the scope of participation by Indigenous groups and scientists. It made strides towards stronger policies on a just transition to a clean energy future, and crowbarred the wallets of wealthy nations a little further open. A debate is now raging as to whether Cop30 was a success, a failure or a fudge. But any judgment needs to take into account the geopolitical minefield in which these talks took place. Here are five threats that will have to be avoided at next year’s climate summit in Turkey. 1. Global leadership vacuum The US walked out. China failed to step up. Many of the problems that beset the talks could have been avoided if these two climate superpowers – the world’s biggest historical emitter and the world’s biggest current emitter – had been able to coordinate a shared approach as they used to do before Donald Trump came to power. Instead, Trump has attacked climate science, cursed the UN and staged a summit in Washington with the Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. Little wonder Riyadh felt emboldened at Cop30 to stymie any mention of fossil fuels, even though language on this was agreed at Cop28 in Dubai. China, by contrast, was present in Belém and geared towards helping its Brics partner, Brazil, to stage a successful conference. But its advisers made clear that Beijing did not want to fill US shoes when it came to finance, nor to lead alone on any issue beyond the manufacture and sale of renewable energy products. 2. Divided Brazil, divided world Among the key fractures in global politics today is that of the relationship between extraction and conservation interests. One wants to endlessly expand agricultural frontiers, dig ever deeper for minerals and ignore the toll on forests and oceans. The other says such activities are breaking planetary boundaries with ever more catastrophic consequences for the climate, nature and human health. This division is evident across the world. It was also apparent at Cop30, where the Brazilian hosts sometimes seemed to send mixed messages, according to observers from Asia, Europe and Latin America. While the environment secretary, Marina Silva, was the driving force in pushing for a roadmap away from fossil fuels and deforestation, the foreign ministry – which has spent decades promoting agribusiness and oil exports – was far more hesitant and needed prompting by the president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The Amazon rainforest appeared to have been a victim of this, getting only one brief and vague mention in the main negotiating text. 3. European parsimony and the rise of the far right Europe has often presented itself as a leader on climate action, but it was heavily criticised at Cop30 for lagging on promises of climate finance for developing countries. It too was woefully divided, partly due to the rise of the far right in many countries. As a result, the EU had to delay its updated nationally determined contribution (NDC) climate plan and only decided halfway through the Belém conference that it would make a fossil fuel transition roadmap one of its negotiating “red lines”. This was incompetent at best, because such major issues need far more advance coordination. Little surprise that many global south participants were suspicious that this sudden conversion to the roadmap was a ruse or a bargaining chip to delay action on adaptation finance. 4. Conflicts sapping money and attention Conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and elsewhere overshadowed the conference, shifting priorities for government resources and media coverage. European politicians said their budgets had shifted towards re-arming in response to the rising threat posed by Russia. As a result, they have slashed overseas development aid and it becomes an ever more difficult challenge to allocate funds for climate finance. At one time, that might have provoked an outcry, given polls showing the vast majority of people in the world want their governments to do more to address the climate crisis. But it is increasingly hard for the public in many countries to know what is happening in climate talks. None of the four major US news networks sent a team to Belém. Reporters from British and European broadcasters were present, but many said it was hard for them to get space in news programmes for their stories. This feels defeatist and contrasts with the incredible positive energy on the streets and rivers of Belém. 5. Rusty, cranky global decision making The UN, which turns 80 next year, is showing its age. Consensus decision making at Cop means any country has a veto. That might have made sense when cold war politics were a global priority, but it is inadequate now humanity faces an existential threat to its planetary home. As at previous Cop gatherings, frustrations about this – particularly among small island states – were glaringly apparent at Cop30. Dozens of high-ambition nations led by Colombia issued their own Belém declaration and announced plans to hold a parallel process on phasing out fossil fuels, which will have a first conference in Santa Marta, Colombia next April. The organisers say it is intended to complement rather than replace the UN process, but it could also widen the gap between major fossil fuel producers and those who champion renewables. On the political level, that might be an inevitable break, but the global economy is increasingly moving towards renewable power, which is now cheaper than fossil fuels, and demographic trends are shifting power to the global south. Meanwhile, underpinning everything are the unrelenting physics of the climate crisis, for which there can be no veto. These realities needs to be recognised by a revamped and more dynamic system of global governance. Or the Paris agreement may not make it unscathed from future Cops.