The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) in Belem, Brazil was characterized by deep divisions, and aimed to prevent and deal with global warming.
Primarily, several countries were furious when COP30 in Belem, Brazil ended up with no plan to phase out the hydrocarbons that heat up the atmosphere.
This summit was a moment of truth regarding how much universal accord has broken down over climate change action.
Following are the crucial elements of what some have called the COP of truth are as follows.
Brazil’s collapse raises big questions
The negative assessment stems primarily from the host country’s failure to secure a global consensus on one of the most crucial issues: a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels.
While the multilateral process remains active, many participants failed to secure anything close to the ambition they had actually wanted.
Despite the friendly deal for Brazil and for President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, there is still some frustration ongoing regarding the conduct of this meeting.
However, President Lula wanted to achieve this, and COP President Andre Correa do Lago felt it was possible.
President Lula wanted to present the strategies away from fossil fuels to world leaders before the official inauguration of the COP 30 in Belem.
Brazil has a crucial role to come up with a face-saving strategy of roadmaps on deforestation and fossil fuels that would exist outside the COP; these were remarkably appreciated in the council chamber, but their legal standing is undetermined.
EU struggles to lead at COP summit
The assessment that the EU had a bad COP in Belem, Brazil has largely stemmed from its failure to secure a concrete agreement on fossil-fuels, a result that did not represent the European Union’s finest hour.
They have been advocating for the continued use of fossil fuels, resulting in a formal agreement from which they eventually couldn’t extract themselves.
Meanwhile, the EU tried to press the emerging economies to support the idea of a fossil fuel roadmap, but it had nothing to offer as an incentive for the deal.
A climate expert, Li Shuo, said, “Overall we are seeing a European Union is concerned.”
He further said, “This partly reflects the power shift in the real world, the emerging power of the BASIC and BRICS countries, and the decline in the influence of the European Union.”
Questions mount over COP’s future
The most persistent question intensified a long-running debate over the efficacy of the process following the deeply decisive COP30.
The COP idea mainly benefited humanity in delivering the Paris climate agreement; however many participants now feel it lacks a compelling mission since that major achievement.
Questions about how countries could reach carbon neutrality have never been more critical, and yet the COP process seems distant from the day- to-day lives of billions of people.
It is an agreement that comes from another side, and we are not in that situation anymore.
Brazil has acknowledged some of these issues, and tried to make this an “Implementation COP” and focused heavily on the energy agenda.
Trade steps back into the spotlight
Global trade has become one of the areas receiving growing recognition and formal integration into international policy debates.
Trade was an effort to raise it in every negotiating room, and it is now being acknowledged as a central and inescapable element of effective climate action.
The European Union is proposing to introduce a broader tax on certain high-carbon products like steel, fertilizer, cement, and aluminium-and lots of its trading partners, including China, India, and Saudi Arabia, are dissatisfied with it.
They were of the view that the measure isn’t justified, calling it a one-sided “unilateral” in the technical term, and arguing that it will make the goods they sell into Europe more expensive and less competitive.
According to Europeans, the measure is not about suppressing trade but about pricing planet-warming gas emissions to combat climate change.
However, the EU already assesses their own manufacturers a fee for the emissions they create, and the border tax protects domestic producers from cheaper imports from abroad.
The issue was rectified in Brazil with a classic COP compromise, and the discussions will continue into future talks.
The final agreement sets the agenda for future UN climate talks, requiring governments to take specific actions for achieving better results.
The power of stepping back and staying silent
Recent development showed the world’s two biggest carbon emitters, China and the US, had similar impacts on this COP but achieved them in distinct ways.
US President Donald Trump stayed away, while Russia, though a silent participant, was leading the obstruction on roadmaps.
China remained silent, while Saudi Arabia and other prominent oil producers were inimical to curbing fossil fuels.
Keeping in line with the experts’ view, China business is doing well, outpacing the US, which is still entangled with fossil fuel sales.
Nonetheless, the summit delivered a crucial boost in climate finance and institutional justice, but failed to secure a global plan to end the fossil fuel era.
