Global climate negotiations eked out an agreement that manages to nudge forward efforts to curb planet-warming emissions. But the final result — in avoiding explicit reference to fossil fuels — will leave big questions hanging over the efficacy of international climate politics.Two weeks of talks in the rainforest city of Belem, Brazil, served as a rebuttal of sorts to the idea that climate multilateralism is no longer viable. In the end, nearly 200 countries agreed to an eight-page document that calls for stronger efforts on national goals on emissions and boosting financial support to poor countries that need help defending against intensifying heat, storms and droughts.But the outcome of COP30 revealed deep fractures, particularly around which countries should pay for adaptation and how to get the world off fossil fuels. The Global Mutirao decision, a title using the Brazilian hosts' term for collective action, left out key provisions about winding down fossil fuel use that had been the benchmark for success by dozens of more ambitious countries.The two largest economies and historical emitters, the US and China, were conspicuous in their lack of impact. President Donald Trump declined to send representatives as the US exits from global climate accords; China focused more on its own interests in trade rather than stepping into a stronger leadership role.For some diplomats and experts, the outcome at best prevents a backslide on previous deals while doing little more to curb the oil, gas and coal that remain the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions. “This COP was the manifestation of a new geopolitical reality,” said Linda Kalcher, executive director at Strategic perspectives.**media[386956]**Brazil, host of the UN summit on the edge of the Amazon, announced it would work on two initiatives to combat deforestation and transition away from fossil fuels that will take shape over the next year and could inform COP31 talks in Turkiye. To understand what happened and where it leaves the world, we’ve compiled six key takeaways.The fossil fuel gap is still too wideA proposed road map for the transition away from oil, gas and coal was a focal point of this year’s COP, with backing from roughly 80 countries, including Colombia, the UK, Germany and Kenya. So when the draft that Brazil released on Friday didn’t mention it, many delegates were disappointed and angry.Ultimately, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago pledged to create a road map focused on a just transition away from fossil fuels, which will continue over the next year. While that measure won robust applause Saturday, it’s not the full plan incorporated in formal COP processes that supporters wanted.“Staying silent on fossil fuels” isn’t sufficient, said Harjeet Singh, a founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation.Nearly 200 countries agreed in Dubai in 2023 to phase out fossil fuels. But that belies a deep, persistent divide on the issue. Some nations insisted that COP30 spur concrete action to help economies make the shift. For others, such as China and oil producers such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, any new obligation relating to the phaseout was a red line.Adaptation has jumped up the agendaIn climate policy, adaptation — learning to live with the effects of a warmer world — has long taken a back seat to emission-cutting work of mitigation. But adaptation was elevated at this year’s COP, a recognition that climate damage is happening now and the need to adapt is here. Worsening storms, floods, droughts and fires pose a huge burden, especially on developing countries and small island states.COP30 adopted a call to triple adaptation finance by 2035. That timeline is five years longer than what developing nations were pushing for, though. “In the Marshalls, our adaptation needs are overwhelming,” Kalani Kaneko, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, said at the summit.The 2035 timeline is hard but achievable, according to experts. “Tripling the adaptation goal is possible,” climate finance specialists at the World Resources Institute wrote in an analysis earlier this month. “But every relevant source of finance will need to step up, and the system will need to work better as a whole.”Trade and critical minerals are climate issues, tooTrade is a flashpoint in global politics right now, and it created tension in Belém as well. China and other countries voiced displeasure with the European Union’s carbon levy. The measure is designed to prevent carbon “leakage” when heavy-emitting industries relocate offshore, but critics say it penalises other countries' exports to the bloc.Those frustrations made it into the final agreement, which includes a swipe at such unilateral trade actions. The document reaffirms that measures taken to combat climate change “should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.” It also sets up a dialogue and a high-level event in 2028 to consider the role of trade policy.And for the first time at a COP, delegates included language on critical minerals such as lithium and cobalt in a draft negotiating text that highlighted the risks associated with their extraction and processing. Although it was left out of the final decision, the proposal underscored mounting concerns that the shift away from polluting fossil fuels could leave the world more reliant on minerals tied to environmental and social ills.Political freedom makes a COP comebackTens of thousands of people took to the streets of Belém on November 15 to call for a stronger response to climate change. The previous day, Indigenous activists blocked the entrance to the Blue Zone of the COP30 venue, staying put until they could have a dialogue with the Brazilian officials leading the summit. And before that, a small group of protesters forced their way into the Blue Zone after being denied access.Such scenes in democratic Brazil were a far cry from the past three COPs, held in countries where political expression is heavily restricted. While many activists said the summit did not adequately include or listen to them, civil society was a bigger part of these talks than it had been for years.With COP31 set to be held in Turkiye, protests may once again recede. The country has seen one of the sharpest pullbacks on freedom of expression over the past decade, according to Freedom House.Forests got money — but not make-or-break supportBrazil went into COP30 with a signature initiative: the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, a fund to support rainforest conservation worldwide. The country hoped for tens of billions in pledges, but the fund fell far short.Norway, Germany and Indonesia and others have committed more than $6bn so far. Norway’s pledge came with conditions that include raising more investment from others, meaning much work remains to be done.The Global Mutirão decision also recognises the critical role of forests in storing carbon and maintaining a liveable climate. However, a proposed road map to stop deforestation did not make it into the final text, with Corrêa do Lago instead propping up a second initiative akin to the fossil fuel one. It’s an omission that some found galling given the setting of the talks.“If we cannot agree on ending deforestation here in the Amazon, the question is, ‘then where?’” asked Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, the special representative for climate change from Panama.The US makes its absence feltThis was the first COP without American attendance since President Donald Trump returned to the White House — and that absence was felt, for both good and bad.Developed country negotiators, like those in the EU, missed the presence of the US to act as a driver of ambition, using its diplomatic heft during critical moments with countries like China and Saudi Arabia. There was little sign of others being willing to step up into the vacuum. Beijing submitted an underwhelming climate pledge ahead of the summit and kept a low profile at the talks. Europe remained on the defensive against accusations of not providing enough finance and unfair trade measures.Yet there was also relief that the US didn’t disrupt talks. In the weeks before COP30, the US played the role of spoiler in negotiations at the International Maritime Organisation, which had been working for years to adopt a new global charge on the shipping industry’s enormous emissions.
