🔗 Share this article

As dawn crept over the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, negotiators remained confined in a windowless conference room, unaware whether it was day or night. They had been 12 hours in strained discussions, with numerous ministers representing various coalitions of countries from the poorest nations to the wealthiest economies.

Tempers were short, the air stifling as weary delegates confronted the grim reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The 30th UN climate conference hovered near the brink of abject failure.

The sticking point: Fossil fuels

Scientific evidence has shown for more than a century, the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels is warming our planet to alarming levels.

However, during over three decades of yearly climate meetings, the urgent need to stop fossil fuel use has been referenced only once – in a decision made two years ago at the Dubai climate summit to "move beyond fossil fuels". Delegates from the Arab Group, Russia, and a few other countries were adamant this would not occur another time.

Mounting support for change

Meanwhile, a growing number of countries were equally determined that movement on this issue was vitally needed. They had formulated a proposal that was attracting increasing support and made it evident they were ready to hold firm.

Emerging economies strongly sought to move forward on securing economic resources to help them address the growing impacts of climate disasters.

Critical moment

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

The pivotal moment came through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Shortly after 6am, principal delegates left the main group to hold a private conversation with the lead Saudi negotiator. They encouraged language that would indirectly acknowledge 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". After consideration, the Saudi delegation surprisingly agreed to the wording.

The room collapsed into relief. Cheers erupted. The settlement was finalized.

With what became known as the "Brazil agreement", the world took an incremental move towards the gradual elimination of fossil fuels – a uncertain, limited step that will minimally impact the climate's ongoing trajectory towards crisis. But nevertheless a notable change from complete stagnation.

Major components of the agreement

• Complementing the indirect reference in the official document, countries will begin work a framework to systematically reduce fossil fuels
• This will be mostly a voluntary initiative 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 secured a threefold increase to $120bn of annual finance to help them cope with the impacts of extreme weather
• This funding will not be fully available until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "fair adjustment program" to help people working in polluting businesses move toward the sustainable sector

Mixed reactions

With global conditions teeters on the brink of climate "tipping points" that could destroy ecosystems and force whole regions into crisis, the agreement was insufficient as the "significant advancement" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some small advances in the right direction, but given the scale of the climate crisis, it has fallen short of the occasion," warned one environmental analyst.

This flawed deal might have been the maximum achievable, given the political challenges – including a US president who shunned the talks and remains aligned with oil and coal, the growing influence of rightwing populism, ongoing conflicts in different locations, unacceptable degrees of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

"Major polluters – the oil and gas companies – were finally in the crosshairs at the climate summit," comments one environmental advocate. "We have crossed a threshold on that. The platform is accessible. Now we must convert it to a genuine solution to a more secure planet."

Major disagreements revealed

Although nations were able to celebrate the official adoption of the deal, Cop30 also exposed major disagreements in the sole international mechanism for confronting the climate crisis.

"International summits are unanimity-required, and in a time of geopolitical divides, consensus is progressively challenging to reach," observed one senior UN official. "It would be dishonest to claim that Cop30 has achieved complete success that is needed. The disparity between present circumstances and what evidence necessitates remains concerningly substantial."

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