Do UN climate talks have a point any more?

The image, captured a decade ago in the vibrant city of Paris, now feels like a poignant relic of a bygone era. In it, a formidable assembly of world leaders, impeccably dressed in dark suits, stands united before a colossal banner proclaiming COP21 Paris. At its heart, the then-UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, beams alongside the future King Charles III, positioned just in front of China’s President Xi Jinping. Further to the right, the then-US President Barack Obama is deep in conversation, partially obscured, a testament to the sheer number of global dignitaries present that day – so many, in fact, that the photographer struggled to fit them all into a single frame. This extraordinary turnout, which also included figures like Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi, underscored a powerful, albeit fleeting, moment of collective resolve and optimism regarding climate action.

What a stark contrast to the comparatively sparse "family photograph" taken this Thursday at the COP30 summit in Belém, Brazil. The powerful leaders of China and India, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, were notable no-shows, along with the heads of state from approximately 160 other nations. Most strikingly, the US President, Donald Trump, was conspicuously absent. His administration has not only withdrawn from the core process entirely but has explicitly stated it will not send any high-level officials this year, signaling a dramatic shift in its approach to international climate diplomacy.

This diminished attendance and overt disengagement from major global players inevitably provoke a critical question: why persist with a two-week-long multinational gathering if so many key leaders are unwilling to participate? The very premise of these summits, designed to foster global cooperation on an existential threat, appears to be crumbling under the weight of geopolitical fragmentation and diverging national interests.

Even those intimately involved in the UN climate process have voiced profound doubts. Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN’s climate framework, under whose leadership the landmark Paris Agreement was forged, candidly declared during last year’s gathering that the COP process was "not fit for purpose." Her assessment, coming from such a central figure, carries significant weight, suggesting fundamental flaws in the current multilateral approach. Joss Garman, a former climate activist now leading the Loom think tank, echoes this sentiment, asserting, "The golden era for multilateral diplomacy is over." He further argues that "Climate politics is now more than ever about who captures and controls the economic benefits of new energy industries," highlighting a shift from cooperative environmentalism to competitive industrial policy. Given that global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise even after 29 such meetings, all ostensibly aimed at reducing them, the efficacy and relevance of continuing these annual COPs are increasingly under scrutiny.

President Trump’s stance on climate change has been unequivocal and confrontational. On his first day back in office, wielding his signature marker pen, he swiftly withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement. This 2015 UN treaty was the culmination of years of negotiation, with nations committing to work collaboratively to limit global warming to well below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C. Trump famously dismissed climate change as "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world," warning the UN General Assembly that "If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail."

His administration has acted decisively on this rhetoric. It has systematically rolled back environmental restrictions on oil, gas, and coal industries, simultaneously signing billions of dollars in tax breaks for fossil fuel firms and opening vast federal lands for extraction. Beyond domestic policy, Trump and his team have aggressively lobbied governments worldwide to abandon their "pathetic" renewable energy programs and instead purchase US oil and gas. This push has included veiled threats of punitive tariffs for non-compliance, leading countries like Japan, South Korea, and various European nations to commit to buying tens of billions of US hydrocarbons. The objective is clear and singular: Trump aims to solidify the US as the "number one energy superpower in the world" through fossil fuel dominance.

Concurrently, he has embarked on a comprehensive dismantling of his predecessor Joe Biden’s clean energy agenda. Subsidies and tax breaks for burgeoning wind and solar sectors have been drastically cut, permits for renewable projects withdrawn, and numerous initiatives cancelled. Research funding for climate-friendly technologies has also faced significant reductions. When questioned about this policy, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, in a September interview, defended the cuts by stating, "Wind power in the United States has been subsidised for 33 years – isn’t that enough? You’ve got to be able to walk on your own after 25 to 30 years of subsidies." This view starkly contrasts with that of John Podesta, a senior climate adviser to both Obama and Biden, who lamented, "The United States is taking a wrecking ball to clean energy. They’re trying to take us back not to the 20th Century, but the 19th."

The impact of this policy extends beyond national borders. Just last month, a landmark deal aimed at cutting global shipping emissions, a significant contributor to carbon output, was controversially abandoned after the US, supported by Saudi Arabia, successfully ended the negotiations. This move has amplified concerns among supporters of the COP talks, who fear that the US path will inevitably lead other countries to dial down their own climate commitments. Anna Aberg, a Research Fellow at Chatham House’s Environment and Society Centre, underscores the gravity of the situation, describing COP as "taking place in a really difficult political context" given Trump’s position. She emphasizes, "I think it’s more important than ever that this COP sends some kind of signal to the world that there are still governments and businesses and institutions that are acting on climate change."

Trump’s fossil fuel-centric strategy places the US on an undeniable collision course with China, which has, for decades, pursued a contrasting ambition: to dominate the world’s energy supplies through clean technology. In 2023, clean technologies were responsible for an estimated 40% of China’s economic growth, according to the climate website Carbon Brief. Even after a slight slowdown last year, renewables accounted for a quarter of all new growth and now constitute over 10% of the entire Chinese economy. Like Trump’s America, China’s engagement on energy extends far beyond its participation in COP, actively exporting its comprehensive clean energy model globally.

This ideological and economic split has fundamentally transformed the climate debate. It is no longer solely about environmental stewardship but has evolved into a fierce geopolitical contest between the world’s two superpowers for control of what is arguably the most essential industry on Earth. This leaves nations like the UK, Europe, India, Indonesia, Turkey, and Brazil in a precarious middle ground, forced to navigate the competing pressures and incentives from both sides. A government source from a major developed country, speaking at this year’s conference, revealed the pervasive anxiety: "Of all the things they’re most terrified of, the biggest is being seen to criticise Trump."

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, recently issued a stark warning that Europe must not repeat "the mistakes of the past" and risk losing yet another strategic industry to China. She cited the loss of Europe’s solar manufacturing base to cheaper Chinese rivals as "a cautionary tale we must not forget." The European Commission has forecasted that the global market for renewables and other clean energy sources will balloon from €600bn (£528bn) to an astonishing €2 trillion (£1.74tn) within the next decade, with Europe aiming to capture at least 15% of this burgeoning market. However, this ambition may prove to be too little, too late.

Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Policy Institute, succinctly states, "China is already the world’s clean-tech superpower." He argues that its dominance in solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles (EVs), and advanced battery technologies is now "virtually unassailable." Li likens the challenge of surpassing China in these sectors to attempting to beat the Chinese national team at table tennis: "If you want to surpass China, you had to get your act together 25 years ago. If you want to do it now, you have no hope." China currently produces over 80% of the world’s solar panels, a similar share of advanced batteries, 70% of EVs, and more than 60% of wind turbines, all offered at remarkably low prices, creating an almost insurmountable competitive advantage.

The EU’s recent decision to raise tariffs on Chinese EVs perfectly encapsulates this dilemma. Open the market completely, and Europe’s domestic car industry could face collapse; close it, and the continent’s ambitious green targets might become unattainable due to the higher cost of alternatives. Joss Garman acknowledges that restricting Chinese access might slow emissions reductions but argues, "If we ignore questions about economic security, jobs, national security, that risks undermining public and political support for the entire climate effort."

Against this backdrop of global political shifts and redefined priorities, Anna Aberg suggests that COP may need to evolve into an annual forum primarily focused on "holding to account" countries and other organizations, a role she believes remains "important." The current gathering in Brazil occurs amidst dire warnings. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has already acknowledged that the 1.5°C target set in Paris will be breached, describing this failure as "deadly negligence" on the part of the world community. Last year was the hottest ever recorded, and in June, 60 leading climate scientists warned that the Earth could breach the 1.5°C threshold in as little as three years at current emission levels. These alarming realities fuel the growing chorus of voices questioning the necessity of an annual, large-scale gathering.

Michael Liebreich, founder of energy consultancy Bloomberg New Energy Finance and host of the "Cleaning Up" podcast, is one such critic. "I think we need one big COP every five years. And between that, I’m not sure what COP is for," he states. He argues that "You can’t just expect politicians to go and make more and more commitments. You need time for industries to develop and for things to happen. You need the real economy to catch up." Liebreich advocates for more productive, smaller meetings focused on removing specific barriers to clean energy, suggesting that discussions on implementation should occur in more relevant venues, such as Wall Street, "where people can actually fund stuff," rather than in a humid town on the edge of the Amazon rainforest.

Despite these criticisms, specific negotiations at this year’s COP remain crucial. Among other objectives, the summit aims to secure an agreement for a multi-billion-dollar fund dedicated to supporting the world’s vital rainforests, including the Amazon and the Congo Basin. Michael Jacobs, a politics professor at Sheffield University who advised Gordon Brown on climate policy, believes that continued collective support for the COP process is indispensable. "It’s a big political message, because Donald Trump is trying to undermine the collective process, but it’s also a message to businesses that they should continue to invest in decarbonisation because governments will continue to enact climate policies."

The UK’s Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, also staunchly defends these meetings, asserting that they have delivered tangible progress by compelling countries to engage with climate change and enact policies that have catalyzed the renewable energy revolution. "It’s dry, it’s complicated, it’s anguished, it’s tiring," he concedes, "and it’s absolutely necessary."

However, a broader consensus is emerging: while the need for international dialogue on climate change remains, the format of these annual gatherings may require scaling down. Ultimately, the fundamental choice facing many nations in attendance is no longer just about multilateral commitments but increasingly about the extent to which they align with a China-led clean energy revolution or double down on a fossil fuels-first agenda. This profound shift suggests that the process of decarbonization in the coming years will be less about the grand multi-country declarations of COPs past, and far more about targeted, big-money deals forged between individual nations. This new reality will undoubtedly reshape how COPs function and their perceived relevance in the future.

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. You can now sign up for notifications that will alert you whenever an InDepth story is published – click here to find out how.