Five key takeaways from a deeply divisive climate summit

This meeting is shaping up to be one of the most divisive in three decades of meetings aimed at building global consensus on how to prevent and combat global warming.

Many countries were outraged as Saturday’s COP30 meeting in Belem, Brazil, ended with no mention of fossil fuels that are responsible for warming the atmosphere. Other countries – especially those that benefit most from continued production – feel vindicated.

The summit was a reality check on how divided the global consensus is on tackling climate change.

Here are five key takeaways from what some are calling a “truth COP.”

Brazil – not their finest moment

The most important outcome of COP30 is that the climate “ship” is still afloat

But many participants were dissatisfied that they didn’t get anything close to what they wanted.

Despite their enthusiasm for Brazil and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the way they conducted the meeting was frustrating.

From the outset, there seemed to be a gulf between what President Lula wanted the conference to achieve and what President Andre Correa do Lago, the President of the Conference of the Parties, thought was possible.

So Lula spoke about a road map away from fossil fuels to a handful of world leaders who came to Belém ahead of the official start of the Conference of the Parties.

The idea was adopted by many countries, including the UK, and within days a campaign was launched to formally include the roadmap in negotiations.

Largo wasn’t keen. His north star is consensus. He knew forcing fossil fuels onto the agenda would undermine that.

While the initial agreement text had some vague references to what appeared to be a roadmap, within days they disappeared and never came back.

Colombia, the European Union and some 80 countries are trying to find language to signal a further move away from coal, oil and gas.

To reach consensus, Do Lago convened a mutirão, a Brazilian group discussion.

This makes things worse.

Arab negotiators refuse to mix with those who want to move away from fossil energy.

The EU has been given the cold shoulder by major producers.

“We develop energy policy in our capital, not in yours,” Saudi representatives told them in a closed-door meeting, according to one observer.

Ouch!

Nothing can bridge the divide—negotiations are on the verge of collapse.

Brazil has floated the face-saving idea of ​​a road map on deforestation and fossil fuels that would exist outside the Conference of the Parties.

These were met with loud applause in the plenary chamber, but their legal status is uncertain.

i had a bad cop

They are the richest group of countries in the world Paris Agreement But this COP is not the EU’s finest moment.

While they have been grandstanding about the need for a fossil fuel roadmap, they have painted themselves into a corner on another aspect of the deal that they ultimately cannot get out of.

The idea of ​​tripling climate adaptation funding appeared in early texts and carried over into the final draft.

The wording was vague so the EU did not object, but crucially the word “triple” remained in the text.

So when the EU tried to urge developing countries to support the idea of ​​a fossil fuel roadmap, they had nothing to sweeten the deal – as the concept of triple growth was already taking shape.

“Overall, we see that the EU has been backed into a corner,” said Li Shuo of the Asia Society, a long-time observer of climate politics.

“This partly reflects real-world power shifts, the rise of BASIC and BRIC, and the decline of the EU.”

The EU strongly condemned this, but they had to agree to the deal beyond tripling fiscal spending from 2030 to 2035, and they achieved little on fossil fuels.

The future of the COP is questionable

For two weeks, the most persistent question raised at COP30 was about the future of the “process” itself.

Two frequently heard positions:

How crazy is it to have thousands of people fly halfway around the world and sit in giant air-conditioned tents arguing over the interpretation of commas and complex words?

How ridiculous is it that the key discussions here, about the future of how we power the world, are being held at 3am among sleep-deprived delegates who haven’t been home in weeks?

The idea of ​​a Conference of the Parties served the world well in finally achieving the Paris climate agreement – ​​but that was a decade ago, and many participants believe it no longer serves a clear, powerful purpose.

“We cannot abandon it completely,” Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative campaigner Harjit Singh told BBC News.

“But this needs revamping. We need processes outside of this system to help complement what we’ve done so far.”

The cost of energy and the effective question of how countries can achieve net zero emissions have never been more important, but the idea of ​​a COP seems far removed from the daily lives of billions of people.

This is a consensus process from a different era. We are no longer in that world.

Brazil recognizes some of these problems and is trying to make it an “enforcement police” and focus on its “energy agenda.” But no one really knows what these ideas really mean.

COP leaders are reading the room – they are trying to find the new approaches needed, otherwise this meeting will lose all relevance.

Trade recovers from severe cold

For the first time, global trade emerged as one of the key issues in these talks. Alden Meyer, a senior COP observer at climate think tank E3G, said there were “carefully planned” efforts in every negotiating room to improve the target.

“What does this have to do with climate change?” you may be thinking.

The answer is that the EU is planning to impose border taxes on certain high-carbon products such as steel, fertilizers, cement and aluminum, and many of its trading partners – notably China, India and Saudi Arabia – are not happy about this.

They say it would be unfair for large trading blocs to impose what they call unilateral measures (the technical term is “unilateral”) because it would make the goods they sell to Europe more expensive and therefore less competitive.

Europeans say this is wrong because the measure is not intended to curb trade but to reduce gases that warm the planet – combating climate change. They already charge their own producers of these products for the emissions they generate and say the border tax is a way to protect them from less environmentally friendly but cheaper imports from abroad.

They say if you don’t want to pay our border tax, charge your polluting industries an emissions charge – you collect the money yourself.

Economists like this idea because the higher the cost of pollution, the more likely we are to switch to clean energy alternatives. Of course, this also means we will pay more for anything that contains pollutants.

The issue was resolved in Brazil through a classic COP compromise – moving the discussion forward to future negotiations. The final deal kicks off an ongoing trade dialogue for future U.N. climate talks involving national governments as well as other players such as the World Trade Organization.

Trump gains by staying away – China gains by staying silent

China and the United States, the world’s two largest carbon emitters, have had a similar impact on this COP, but in different ways.

U.S. President Donald Trump did not attend, but his stance has emboldened his allies.

Russia is usually a relatively quiet player, but it stands out in blocking road map efforts. While Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers predictably oppose restrictions on fossil fuels, China has remained silent and focused on making deals.

Eventually, experts say, China will do more business than the United States and its efforts to sell fossil fuels.

“China keeps a low profile politically,” said Li Shuo of the Asia Society.

“They’re focused on making money in the real world.”

“Solar energy is the cheapest energy source, the long-term direction is very clear, and China dominates this area, which puts the United States in a very difficult position.”