What in the World – COP30 made some progress, but not on fossil fuels – BBC Sounds

The thirtieth Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) concluded in Belem, Brazil, on November 24, 2025, marking a critical juncture in global climate diplomacy. While the summit, as discussed in the BBC Sounds’ "What in the World" podcast, delivered incremental advancements in several key areas, it ultimately failed to secure the overarching commitment climate scientists and activists deemed essential: a definitive global agreement to phase out fossil fuels. This outcome leaves the world grappling with the persistent tension between urgent environmental necessity and complex geopolitical and economic realities.

Hosted in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, a region acutely vulnerable to the escalating impacts of climate change, COP30 carried immense symbolic weight. Belem, a vibrant city on the Amazon’s edge, served as a poignant backdrop, bringing the discussions about deforestation, biodiversity loss, and indigenous rights to the forefront. The choice of location was a deliberate effort to emphasize the interconnectedness of climate action with nature preservation and the livelihoods of communities directly affected. Throughout the two weeks of negotiations, delegates were constantly reminded of the tangible consequences of inaction, with the Amazon’s fragile ecosystem serving as a living testament to the planet’s distress. This unique setting amplified calls for decisive action, particularly concerning the drivers of global warming.

Despite the highly charged atmosphere and the dramatic setting, the summit’s final declaration was met with a mix of cautious optimism and profound disappointment. On the positive side, several areas saw discernible progress. Nations reaffirmed commitments to bolstering adaptation measures, recognizing the disproportionate impact of climate change on developing countries. Discussions around the operationalization and capitalization of the Loss and Damage Fund, established at previous COPs, saw some movement, with pledges, albeit modest, from a number of developed nations aimed at supporting vulnerable countries in recovering from climate-induced disasters. Furthermore, there was an intensified focus on nature-based solutions and pledges related to halting and reversing deforestation, especially pertinent given the Amazonian venue. Technology transfer mechanisms and capacity building for renewable energy deployment in the Global South also garnered renewed attention, with several bilateral and multilateral initiatives announced to accelerate the transition away from carbon-intensive power generation in specific regions.

However, these gains were largely overshadowed by the inability to reach a consensus on the most critical issue: the future of coal, oil, and natural gas. The phrase "phase out fossil fuels" – a demand echoed by scientists, environmental groups, and many vulnerable nations – proved to be the insurmountable hurdle. Instead, the final text reportedly included softer language, potentially referencing a "transition away from" or "phasing down unabated fossil fuels," leaving significant loopholes and lacking the clear, time-bound targets that climate models indicate are necessary to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This diplomatic compromise, a familiar pattern in previous COPs, was a bitter pill for those who arrived in Belem hoping for a definitive turning point.

The frustrations boiled over into widespread demonstrations outside the negotiation halls, where thousands of protesters and activists voiced their outrage. Natalia Tsuyama, a Brazilian climate activist attending her first COP, shared her deep disappointment on "What in the World," describing the emotional rollercoaster of witnessing the political process unfold against the backdrop of her home, the Amazon. "We came here with so much hope," Tsuyama reportedly stated, "to see our leaders finally confront the elephant in the room. But again, the power of fossil fuel interests seems to have prevailed over the future of our planet and our people." Her sentiment was echoed by countless others who marched through Belem’s streets, holding placards demanding "Climate Justice Now" and "End Fossil Fuels." These demonstrations underscored a growing global disillusionment with the pace and ambition of governmental action, contrasting sharply with the scientific consensus on the urgency of the crisis.

The roles of the world’s two largest emitters, the United States and China, further complicated the already intricate negotiations. The United States, a historical powerhouse in climate diplomacy, reportedly adopted a noticeably disengaged stance at COP30. "What in the World" noted that the US "hasn’t taken part in the talks" in a meaningful leadership capacity, a stark contrast to previous summits where American delegations often played a pivotal role in brokering deals. This perceived step back could be attributed to a confluence of domestic political pressures, an impending election cycle, or a strategic shift in focus. Regardless of the reason, the absence of strong US leadership left a significant void, making it harder to build the necessary consensus among diverse nations. Without one of the world’s economic and political giants pushing for ambitious targets, the momentum for a robust fossil fuel agreement inevitably faltered.

Meanwhile, China, the largest current emitter, maintained a characteristically "low profile" throughout the summit. While Chinese delegates participated in technical discussions, the nation’s leadership did not project a strong, proactive voice on the most contentious issues, particularly the fossil fuel debate. This cautious approach could reflect internal economic priorities, a desire to avoid direct confrontation with other major players, or a preference for bilateral climate initiatives over multilateral commitments. China’s quiet presence, coupled with the US’s disengagement, created a leadership vacuum that allowed more conservative voices, often from fossil fuel-dependent nations, to exert greater influence on the final text. As resident climate expert Georgina Rannard articulated on the podcast, "When the two biggest players aren’t actively driving the agenda, it creates a much tougher environment for securing truly transformative outcomes. The political will simply wasn’t aligned at the highest levels."

The implications of COP30’s outcome are far-reaching. The failure to secure a clear commitment to phase out fossil fuels signals a continued reliance on energy sources that are unequivocally driving global warming. This outcome makes the already challenging target of limiting warming to 1.5°C increasingly precarious, pushing the world closer to irreversible tipping points. Scientists warn that every fraction of a degree increase leads to more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and devastating impacts on ecosystems and human societies. The lack of a strong signal from Belem could also embolden industries and nations still heavily invested in fossil fuels, potentially slowing down the necessary energy transition.

Looking ahead, the pressure on future COPs will intensify. The global community cannot afford many more summits where the most critical issue remains unresolved. The ongoing struggle highlights the fundamental challenge of balancing economic development, energy security, and environmental protection. While COP30 offered some rays of hope in specific areas of climate action, its central failure on fossil fuels casts a long shadow over the collective effort to avert a climate catastrophe. The call for an end to the fossil fuel era will undoubtedly continue to dominate the discourse, fueled by the unwavering determination of activists like Natalia Tsuyama and the sobering analysis of experts like Georgina Rannard, as the world barrels towards an uncertain climatic future. The lessons from Belem will undoubtedly inform the strategies and struggles of the climate movement for years to come.