🔗 Share this article

While dawn crept over the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, representatives remained confined in a windowless conference room, uncertain whether it was day or night. For more than 12 hours in strained discussions, with numerous ministers representing multiple blocs of countries from the least developed nations to the wealthiest economies.

Tempers were short, the air thick as exhausted delegates confronted the grim reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The 30th UN climate conference teetered on the brink of complete breakdown.

The major obstacle: Fossil fuels

As science has told us for more than a century, the CO2 emissions produced by utilizing fossil fuels is increasing temperatures on our planet to alarming levels.

Nevertheless, during more than three decades of regular climate meetings, the urgent need to stop fossil fuel use has been addressed only once – in a resolution made two years ago at previous UN climate talks to "transition away from fossil fuels". Representatives from the Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and a few other countries were resolved this would not occur another time.

Growing momentum for change

Simultaneously, a expanding group of countries were just as committed that progress on this issue was urgently necessary. They had created a plan that was gathering expanding support and made it clear they were prepared to stand their ground.

Less wealthy nations strongly sought to make progress on securing financial assistance to help them manage the increasingly severe impacts of climate disasters.

Turning point

In the pre-dawn period of Saturday, some delegates were prepared to leave and force a collapse. "The situation was precarious for us," remarked one government representative. "I was ready to walk away."

The critical development came through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Around 6am, senior representatives left the main group to hold a closed-door meeting with the chief Saudi negotiator. They pressed language that would subtly reference the global commitment to "transition away from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Unexpected agreement

Instead of explicitly namechecking fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the Dubai agreement". Upon deliberation, the Saudi delegation surprisingly accepted the wording.

The room collapsed into relief. Cheers erupted. The agreement was completed.

With what became known as the "Brazil agreement", the world took a modest advance towards the phaseout of fossil fuels – a faltering, inadequate step that will barely interrupt the climate's continued progression towards crisis. But nevertheless a significant departure from absolute paralysis.

Major components of the agreement

• In addition to the subtle acknowledgment in the official document, countries will start developing a plan to systematically reduce fossil fuels
• This will be largely a voluntary initiative led by Brazil that will deliver findings next year
• Addressing the essential decreases in greenhouse gas emissions to stay within the 1.5C limit was also put off to next year
• Developing countries achieved a significant expansion to $120bn of regular financial support to help them manage the impacts of extreme weather
• This funding will not be delivered in full until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in fossil fuel sectors move toward the sustainable sector

Varied responses

As the world approaches the brink of climate "irreversible changes" that could destroy ecosystems and force whole regions into chaos, the agreement was insufficient as the "significant advancement" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some modest progress 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 flawed deal might have been the maximum achievable, given the political challenges – including a US president who shunned the talks and remains wedded to oil and coal, the rising tide of conservative movements, continuing wars in different locations, intolerable levels of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

"The climate arsonists – the fossil fuel giants – were at last in the crosshairs at Cop30," says one policy convener. "We have crossed a threshold on that. The political space is open. Now we must turn it into a genuine solution to a protected environment."

Significant divisions revealed

Even as nations were able to welcome the official adoption of the deal, Cop30 also exposed major disagreements in the sole international mechanism for tackling the climate crisis.

"International summits are unanimity-required, and in a time of global disagreements, agreement is progressively challenging to reach," stated one international diplomat. "I cannot pretend that Cop30 has achieved complete success that is needed. The difference between present circumstances and what research requires remains alarmingly large."

If the world is to avoid the gravest consequences of climate collapse, the global discussions alone will fall far short.