At Cop30 in Brazil, nearly 200 nations agreed to triple adaptation finance but avoided fossil fuel commitments, exposing deep divides amid the absence of US leadership.
In the turbulent final hours of the UN climate summit in Brazil, Cop30 negotiators managed to secure a deal that exposed both entrenched geopolitical rifts and the difficulty of forging collective action. Hammered out after gate-side protests, pressure from oil-exporting nations and vocal dissatisfaction from several delegations, the agreement reflected the limits of global climate cooperation in the wake of the Trump administration’s decision to step back from international climate policy.
A deal reached under pressure and in disarray
With delegates exhausted and deadlock deepening, Cop30 President Andre Correa do Lago warned that failure would reward those who oppose climate cooperation. His appeal came as talks teetered on collapse amid fierce disagreements over fossil fuels, finance and forest protection.
Nearly 200 nations endorsed the final compromise, which included a commitment to triple adaptation finance for developing countries but avoided any mention of fossil fuels, the main driver of global warming. The omission left many countries frustrated and led observers to describe the outcome as anything from a diplomatic win to a “very bad joke,” signalling the widening gap between ambition and political reality.
The two-week path to the final deal involved all the human drama associated with extreme fatigue, frustration and obstinance: Indigenous protesters charged the conference gates; Saudi Arabia threatened the deal’s collapse if its oil industry was targeted; Panama called the talks a clown show; and the closing ceremony was suspended for an hour as host Brazil tried to sort out objections.
US absence casts a long shadow
The conference unfolded without a formal US delegation, after President Donald Trump abandoned climate cooperation and dismissed global warming as a hoax. It marked a stark break from past summits, where Washington helped push global ambition alongside the European Union.
EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra admitted forging consensus was “a major blow” without the world’s largest historical emitter. The EU ultimately conceded on its push to include fossil fuel transition language, facing resistance led by Saudi Arabia whose Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was freshly welcomed at the White House.
For many developing and climate-vulnerable nations, the result fell far short of expectations. Panama called it “complicity,” not neutrality. Forest-rich nations complained that the “Forest COP” delivered no meaningful progress on halting deforestation.
Adaptation funds rise, but ambition stalls
Developing nations did secure a key win: a commitment to triple adaptation funding to help countries cope with rising seas, extreme heat and intensifying storms. The Alliance of Small Island States called the deal “a win for multilateralism,” even as others stressed its limits.
Former US Vice President Al Gore described the agreement as “the floor — not the ceiling,” noting that although oil-producing states blocked a fossil-fuel phase-out, Brazil will now lead an effort to craft a global roadmap with support from more than 80 nations.
The true test of COP30’s fractured compromise lies ahead. Brazil must now shepherd negotiations toward a fossil-fuel transition plan and mobilise the expanded pool of adaptation finance. Analysts warn that trust in the process remains fragile after a summit that many participants described as opaque, politically strained and procedurally messy.
As one expert put it, COP30 showcased both the urgent need for climate cooperation and the increasingly volatile global politics that threaten to derail it.
With inputs from agencies
End of Article
