COP30 ends with limited progress amid fierce fossil fuel disputes

The United Nations climate summit COP30 in Belém, Brazil, brought nearly 200 countries into one humid city on the edge of the Amazon to argue about how to keep global warming close to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

They left with a patchwork deal that nods toward a future without fossil fuels, promises more money for climate protection, and still leaves many people frustrated.

Outside the halls, thousands of marchers, youth groups, and Indigenous communities demanded faster action and real accountability. 

Inside, oil producing states pushed back against even naming fossil fuels, and the final text tried to hold these clashing pressures together without fully satisfying either side.

What COP30 actually decided

The process is overseen by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the treaty system that gathers governments at these talks every year. 

Its work centers on turning broad climate promises into detailed rules, targets, and funding arrangements that countries can be held to over time.

Negotiators in Belém wrapped their decisions into a package called the global mutirão, using a Brazilian Portuguese word for collective effort. 

Roadmap to cut emissions

The Belém Package invites willing countries to work together on a voluntary roadmap to cut emissions.

The package also brings trade into the climate conversation for the first time, and calls for a major boost in funding to help vulnerable countries cope with rising seas, storms, and heat.

Two years earlier, governments at COP28 in Dubai agreed for the first time to work toward transitioning away from fossil fuels in their energy systems. 

Belém’s outcome only refers back to that earlier deal instead of repeating the phrase, which shows how controversial even the wording has become among oil and gas producers.

The outcome of COP30

Recent scientific assessments warn that current national plans still put the world on track to overshoot 1.5 degrees within about a decade. 

That warning hung over every late night meeting in Belém, even as the final decisions stopped well short of the cuts scientists say are needed.

Everyone in the room knows that burning coal, oil, and gas is the main reason the planet is heating up, yet several major producers fought hard to keep the term fossil fuels out of the final decision. 

More than 80 countries pushed for a clear, shared timetable to phase them out, but they could not overcome the resistance from powerful exporters such as Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Many governments still treat climate policy mainly as a question of cutting demand, through renewables, efficiency, and carbon pricing. 

Supply risks grow

Economists warn that if supply is not managed too, some producers may rush to extract reserves faster before future rules make their business less profitable – a pattern sometimes called the green paradox.

Frustrated by the stalemate, Colombia and the Netherlands announced they will host a separate International Conference for the Phase out of Fossil Fuels in Colombia in April 2026. 

Their idea is to build a coalition of willing states that agree to wind down extraction in a fair way, even if the United Nations system continues to move slowly.

The push for methane action

Countries in Belém also tried to tackle methane, the powerful greenhouse gas that leaks from wells, pipelines, and coal mines. 

Seven governments, including France, Canada, and Japan, pledged to drive methane emissions from their fossil fuel sectors close to zero.

Scientists note that methane is roughly 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years it spends in the atmosphere.

COP30 exposed a widening gap

At COP29 in 2024, countries set a new climate finance goal of at least 300 billion dollars a year for developing nations by 2035, tripling the long standing 100 billion pledge. 

That New Collective Quantified Goal set the stage for arguments in Belém about who pays, who benefits, and how much will reach people already living with floods, droughts, and eroding coasts.

Belém’s final text calls for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance, money meant to help societies adjust to climate impacts rather than only cut emissions, by 2035. 

Seeking climate justice

That would steer around 120 billion dollars a year toward building sea walls, redesigning cities, and reshaping agriculture so it can survive harsher conditions.

Even that larger number still trails what experts say is needed, since the latest United Nations adaptation report estimates that developing countries alone may require more than 310 billion dollars a year by 2035 to stay safe. 

The gap between promises and needs is why many leaders from the global South use the phrase climate justice when they talk about finance, even as official COP language sticks to softer terms like equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

Another sore point is how the money will flow, because many poor countries are already heavily indebted. 

Governments pressed donors in Belém to provide more grants and fewer loans so that climate projects do not deepen existing financial crises. Debates over who counts as a developing country added yet another layer of tension.

Amazon shaped COP30 debates

Hosting COP30 in Belém put the Amazon rainforest at the center of the talks, and about 3,000 Indigenous participants traveled to the city to push for stronger land rights and protections. 

Their presence highlights that climate policy is not only about parts per million of gases in the air, but also about territory, culture, and safety in places where oil drilling and logging are expanding.

Brazil launched a Tropical Forests Forever Facility that would reward forest-rich countries for every hectare of trees they keep standing, with billions of dollars in early pledges and a long term goal of raising 125 billion dollars. 

Supporters see it as a way to put real money behind preserving intact forests instead of only paying for carbon credits once trees are at risk.

Brazil’s mixed climate signals

Trade also entered the climate rulebook as a new pillar, reflecting anxiety over tools like carbon border measures, import rules that adjust prices based on how much carbon was emitted to make a product. 

Exporters such as China fear that badly designed climate tariffs could cut into their sales or slow the spread of low cost clean technologies.

Brazil’s own choices show how messy this all is. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva talked up forest protection and new funds against deforestation.

State company Petrobras pushed for new oil exploration in sensitive regions, even as Environment Minister Marina Silva urged the world to confront fossil fuels head on.

Young people fighting for their future

In an article based on interviews from the summit, researcher Susan Ann Samuel described how young negotiators came to Belém with strong expectations and left with mixed feelings. 

Brazilian volunteer Nathália Vasques captured the mood when she said: “Without us, they’d be lost, pointing out that young people still sit mostly on the margins of real decisions.”

Brazilian student Ana Bertazzo Lemos arrived calling for firm fossil fuel obligations and for climate action to be woven into ordinary life – from transport to food choices. 

Frustration with COP30 outcomes

She and others were disappointed that the final COP30 text never directly mentioned fossil fuels, and that serious planning for a phase out had to shift into parallel political spaces beyond the United Nations.

Public health researchers such as Nova Tebbe argued in Belém that human health should sit at the center of climate policy, not at the edges. 

Her call for clear indicators and adequate finance fed into a new just transition mechanism.

The tool is meant to make the move toward a cleaner economy a just transition – fair for workers and communities that now rely on coal, oil, and gas.

Legal ideas grow

Legal-minded youth like Emily Zinkula focused on whether new advisory opinions from top international courts can sharpen countries’ legal duties on climate change. 

Some hope that recognizing severe, human-driven destruction of nature as an international crime would force governments to take clearer positions.

They also believe that bolstering the global stocktake – the UN’s periodic checkup on collective progress – could help turn vague promises into concrete action.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–