COP 30: The future of geopolitics and a sustainable future

By Kobika Dilipkumar

Ten years since the world agreed on the breakthrough Paris Agreement, world leaders, NGOs, activists, and more gathered in the sweltering heat of Belém for COP 30. Many hoped that this would be the year that global climate diplomacy shifts from promises to action, and two weeks of heated negotiations culminated in the Belém Package, comprising 29 decisions aimed at accelerating climate action. Despite being adopted by 195 countries, the Package has made no meaningful progress and falls short of the summit’s branding as the “COP of Implementation”. A notably divisive COP, competing priorities, and heightened tensions revealed shifts in global climate diplomacy and raised questions about how well the COP process remains fit for purpose.

While this year’s COP may have fallen short of its name, progress was made in certain areas, offering a glimmer of hope for future summits. One of the most meaningful outcomes was the agreement to create a just transition mechanism which centres people and equity in the shift to a cleaner, climate–resilient future. Advancements in gender equality in climate action and financing for tropical forests resulted in the Gender Action Plan and the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) fund.

Climate finance, which was not on the official agenda, was also a big topic of discussion at this year’s summit. A commitment was made to triple adaptation finance by 2035 to support lower–income countries in adapting to the effects of climate change and mitigating its impacts. This is part of a larger goal to deliver $1.3 trillion per year by 2023. However, 2035 is a weaker target than the originally proposed 2030 target and will ultimately delay the urgent action needed to protect the countries most vulnerable to climate change.

A notably divisive COP, competing priorities, and heightened tensions revealed shifts in global climate diplomacy and raised questions about how well the COP process remains fit for purpose.

At the centre of COP 30’s failure, however, lies fossil fuels, an area which highlighted the current state of global climate diplomacy. Unarguably, fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change, and there must be unanimous agreement on this for genuine progress to be made. Two years ago, at COP 28, nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels, but no formal roadmap was adopted. This year, over 80 nations, including the UK, urged greater action on fossil fuels and called for a roadmap to put the agreed transition into action, with clearer, stronger language committing to phase them out. However, strong opposition was seen from major oil–producing countries and many emerging economies. Oil–producing countries argued against language that would put them at an economic disadvantage. Many emerging economies also opposed a set roadmap for fossil fuels, asserting that it would be unfair to require them to risk economic growth, pointing out that today’s wealthier nations had built their wealth on decades of high carbon emissions. They also noted that, despite new agreements to triple adaptation finance, wealthier countries have been slow to deliver on their agreed climate finance commitments, making fossil fuel pledges inequitable. In the end, the Belém Package made no mention of fossil fuels, with opposition strong enough to push action to a future date. However, a binding pathway on fossil fuels must be agreed upon to advance global climate diplomacy. 

The lack of consensus on a fossil fuel roadmap and, in fact, on COP 30 as a whole reveals the shifts we are currently seeing in global climate diplomacy. The US notably did not send any high–level representatives to the summit, which has advantages, such as not being able to block new efforts. Yet it also comes with its challenges as other countries look to follow suit or are emboldened to oppose plans which impede global climate diplomacy. With this in mind, a few world leaders took aim at Trump’s stance on climate change and urged other countries not to follow suit. China, a key player in solar energy, was also relatively quiet, with its main priority being trade, another key issue highlighted at this year’s summit. Therefore, with two big parties taking a back seat, the BRICs and BASIC countries had a louder voice in guiding discussions. In fact, Brazil has said that it will create its own roadmaps on fossil fuels and deforestation that countries can choose to sign. While this action is not structurally transformative for global climate action, it demonstrates the initiatives emerging economies are taking to lead the way. These transitions in global climate diplomacy reflect the growing voice of emerging economies and why specific outcomes were seen at COP 30.

Be that as it may, the lack of meaningful results at this year’s COP raised the question of whether the COP process can still produce the much-needed consensus for global climate action. COP 30 was divisive, and nothing notably groundbreaking was agreed on. Last year, Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN’s climate process, said that the COP process was “not fit for purpose”. However, COP is one of the few forums where lower–income countries and those most impacted by climate get to have a voice and a seat at the table.

Without it, global action could be dominated by a few parties, ignoring the reality of climate change for most. For this reason, COP remains a key way to advance global climate action, and while it has underscored the current state of global consensus, it is also one of the few places where consensus can be achieved.

Image: Flickr/UN ClimateChange