🔗 Share this article

When dawn was breaking the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, delegates remained confined in a windowless conference room, uncertain whether it was day or night. For more than 12 hours in tense discussions, with scores ministers representing 17 groups of countries from the poorest nations to the most developed economies.

Patience wore thin, the air stifling as sweaty delegates faced up to the harsh reality: they were unlikely to achieve a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The international climate negotiations faced the brink of total collapse.

The central impasse: Fossil fuels

Scientific evidence has shown for nearly a century, the carbon dioxide produced by utilizing fossil fuels is warming our planet to dangerous levels.

Nevertheless, during nearly three decades of annual climate meetings, the essential necessity to halt fossil fuel use has been referenced only once – in a agreement made two years ago at previous UN climate talks to "move beyond fossil fuels". Representatives from the Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and several other countries were adamant this would not occur another time.

Increasing pressure for change

Simultaneously, a growing number of countries were just as committed that progress on this issue was urgently necessary. They had formulated a plan that was attracting growing support and made it clear they were willing to hold firm.

Less wealthy nations urgently needed to make progress on securing financial assistance to help them manage the already disastrous impacts of extreme weather.

Critical moment

By the early hours of Saturday, some delegates were ready to leave and cause breakdown. "We were close for us," stated one energy minister. "I was ready to walk away."

The pivotal moment came through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Around 6am, senior representatives left the main group to hold a closed-door meeting with the head Saudi negotiator. They pressed language that would indirectly acknowledge the global commitment to "shift from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Surprising consensus

As opposed to explicitly namechecking fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the previous commitment". Upon deliberation, the Saudi delegation surprisingly agreed to the wording.

Participants collapsed into relief. Cheers erupted. The agreement was finalized.

With what became known as the "Belém political package", the world took another small step towards the phaseout of fossil fuels – a faltering, limited step that will minimally impact the climate's steady march towards catastrophe. But nevertheless a significant departure from complete stagnation.

Key elements of the agreement

• Alongside the oblique commitment in the official document, countries will commence creating a plan to gradually eliminate fossil fuels
• This will be primarily a non-binding program led by Brazil that will provide updates next year
• Addressing the required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to not exceed the 1.5C limit was likewise deferred to next year
• Developing countries obtained a significant expansion to $120bn of regular financial support to help them manage the impacts of climate disasters
• This funding will not be fully available until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in high-carbon industries transition to the clean economy

Mixed reactions

As the world hovers near the brink of climate "critical thresholds" that could devastate environments and plunge whole regions into crisis, the agreement was far from the "significant advancement" needed.

"Cop30 gave us some baby steps in the proper course, but considering the scale of the climate crisis, it has fallen short of the occasion," warned one climate expert.

This flawed deal might have been the best attainable, given the geopolitical headwinds – including a American leader who ignored the talks and remains wedded to oil and coal, the rising tide of conservative movements, ongoing conflicts in various areas, extreme measures of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

"The climate arsonists – the energy conglomerates – were ultimately in the focus at these negotiations," comments one policy convener. "This represents progress on that. The political space is open. Now we must turn it into a actual pathway to a more secure planet."

Major disagreements revealed

While nations were able to applaud the official adoption of the deal, Cop30 also revealed major disagreements in the only global process for confronting the climate crisis.

"UN negotiations are unanimity-required, and in a era of international tensions, unanimity is ever harder to reach," commented one senior UN official. "We should not suggest that Cop30 has delivered everything that is needed. The disparity between our current position and what evidence necessitates remains alarmingly large."

If the world is to avoid the most severe impacts of climate crisis, the international negotiations alone will fall far short.