🔗 Share this article

When dawn crept over the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, negotiators remained trapped in a windowless conference room, oblivious whether it was day or night. Having spent 12 hours in difficult discussions, with scores ministers representing 17 groups of countries from the poorest nations to the wealthiest economies.

Tempers were short, the air thick as weary delegates acknowledged the sobering reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The 30th UN climate conference faced the brink of abject failure.

The central impasse: Fossil fuels

As science has told us for nearly a century, the carbon dioxide produced by consuming fossil fuels is heating up our planet to critical levels.

However, during nearly three decades of yearly climate meetings, the essential necessity to halt fossil fuel use has been referenced only once – in a agreement made two years ago at the Dubai climate summit to "move beyond fossil fuels". Officials from the Gulf states, Russia, and multiple other countries were determined this would not be repeated.

Growing momentum for change

Simultaneously, a expanding group of countries were similarly resolved that advancement on this issue was vitally needed. They had developed a proposal that was earning growing support and made it clear they were prepared to stand their ground.

Less wealthy nations strongly sought to move forward on securing economic resources to help them address the growing impacts of environmental crises.

Turning point

By the early hours of Saturday, some delegates were willing to withdraw and trigger failure. "It was on the edge for us," stated one energy minister. "I considered to walk away."

The pivotal moment came through talks with Saudi Arabia. Near 6am, senior representatives split from the main group to hold a confidential discussion with the chief Saudi negotiator. They urged wording that would subtly reference the global commitment to "transition away from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Surprising consensus

Instead of explicitly namechecking fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the UAE consensus". Following reflection, the Saudi delegation unexpectedly accepted the wording.

The room showed visible relief. Cheers erupted. The agreement was done.

With what became known as the "Brazil agreement", the world took another small step towards the phaseout of fossil fuels – a uncertain, insufficient step that will minimally impact the climate's ongoing trajectory towards disaster. But nevertheless a significant departure from complete stagnation.

Key elements of the agreement

• Alongside the subtle acknowledgment in the legally agreed text, countries will commence creating a plan to phase out fossil fuels
• This will be largely a voluntary initiative led by Brazil that will deliver findings next year
• Addressing the required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to remain below the 1.5C limit was likewise deferred to next year
• Developing countries obtained a tripling to $120bn of regular financial support to help them adapt to the impacts of extreme weather
• This sum will not be completely provided until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "fair adjustment program" to help people working in fossil fuel sectors shift to the renewable industry

Varied responses

As the world hovers near the brink of climate "tipping points" that could destroy ecosystems and force whole regions into chaos, the agreement was far from the "giant leap" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some baby steps in the right direction, but in light of the scale of the climate crisis, it has failed to rise to the occasion," stated one policy director.

This limited deal might have been the best attainable, given the geopolitical headwinds – including a American leader who shunned the talks and remains aligned with oil and coal, the rising tide of nationalist politics, ongoing conflicts in multiple regions, unacceptable degrees of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

"The climate arsonists – the oil and gas companies – were finally in the spotlight at these negotiations," notes one environmental advocate. "This represents progress on that. The platform is available. Now we must convert it to a genuine solution to a more secure planet."

Significant divisions revealed

Even as nations were able to applaud the formal approval of the deal, Cop30 also highlighted major disagreements in the only global process for addressing the climate crisis.

"Climate conferences are agreement-dependent, and in a period of international tensions, consensus is progressively challenging to reach," observed one international diplomat. "It would be dishonest to claim that these talks has provided all that is needed. The difference between where we are and what evidence necessitates remains dangerously wide."

If the world is to avoid the most severe impacts of climate crisis, the global discussions alone will not be nearly enough.