COP30 began in Brazil, and there is an expectation left from the protestors because there is no plan to gradually quit using fossil fuel. The U.S., the top climate changer and the biggest player in climate diplomacy, was not in attendance. The COP30 U.S. document, due January 2024, has relaxed the COP 27 draft’s ask to enact a fundamental shift in the world economy and fossil fuel statement, to simply recognizing that there is a global transition towards low greenhouse gas emissions, climate-resilient development, and that the world is changing.
Little hope for smaller countries attending the COP30
People were shocked when former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, explained why many were questioning the US’s absence from the negotiations, who stated that it had a “minuscule impact.” The U.S.’s absence at least gave hope to the other bigger parties at the table. Others, however, were equally, if not more, frustrated at the U.S.’s absence as it gave the European Union (EU) the opportunity to lead. Despite the EU receiving criticism of slow leadership.
Additionally, this absence created a lack of hope in the table regarding the global climate governance. There were comments as dignitaries were leaving the table about the missing key financer, the United States. To add to the hopelessness of the governance and smaller countries it was also noted that climate goals would be achieved for the financially ambitious global leadership. The table, as was the global climate leadership, was void of smaller countries that could have taken part in the negotiations because they had the feasible and more practical solutions. It was also highlighted that there was no consensus on a people’s summit and no consolidation on the success regarding unity over the COP30 summit.
The COP30 was productive, yet there are no concrete outcomes nor plans set
There were productive meetings, yet no concrete outcomes, as civil society was sidelined from the table. These elements resulted in what some people have termed ‘theatre of delay’. By far, the most glaring omissions have been situational texts related to hindering a transition from fossil fuel dependency and the disproportionate scaling of both debt and equity finance.
Not everything that came from COP30 was bad. For example, the delegates from the COP30 accepted a just transition mechanism. The Climate Action Network International considers this one of the best outcomes of climate negotiations at the UN in the field of advocacy, which centres on the bottom line of equity in the transition to a decarbonized economy.
The hosting nation gives some direction and hope by developing a promising roadmap
As a host country, Brazil made commitments to prepare two roadmaps: one on deforestation, and the other on losing fossil fuels in a just and equitable way. While the commitments to the roadmaps represent a positive initiative, it remains aspirational, lacking a legal framework and real finance. The president of Colombia, along with several others, sought to disregard portions of the draft COP30’s final agreement, in light of the fact that climate change, specifically fossil fuel in all of its forms, is a direct result of these final agreements. This was the sentiment of Latin climate scientists, who see the world overshooting by 1.5 degrees Celsius as a certainty.
At the very least, the conference also dealt with civil society and smaller states’ determination to hold the line on accountability. Mary Robinson said,
“Belém exemplified the parameters of the attainable, but also exemplified the resolve of the determined.”
It is possible that COP31, unlike previous meetings, will start implementing real action plans instead of performative actions, to slowly start phasing out fossil fuel use. The U.S.’s participation, in conjunction with leading world economies, is lacking the necessary political will to stop climate diplomacy from continuing to be incremental as the world continues to heat.
