COP30 recently concluded in Belém, Brazil, exposing the widening fracture in global climate negotiations. Despite early assurances that the summit would prioritise implementation over commitments, the final outcome did not even mention fossil fuels, one of the central causes of global warming. This absence reflects the entrenched resistance of major oil-producing States to an outcome that puts the planet before narrow commercial interests. Moreover, with the United States of America, the world’s largest emitter, absent, the negotiations lost a balancing force that has historically been essential for brokering compromise. China maintained a deliberately low profile, focusing on commercial opportunities rather than diplomatic leadership, while the European Union struggled to translate its stated ambition into negotiating leverage. The reluctance of influential, emerging economies to adopt firmer commitments was an additional disappointment. This hesitation was most visible in India’s decision to attend the summit without submitting its updated Nationally Determined Contributions, a requirement under the Paris Agreement that most countries had met already. Although India has made progress in expanding non-fossil fuel electricity capacity, international assessments have consistently rated India’s climate action as insufficient, pointing to its high dependence on coal, continued auctioning of coal blocks, and a steep rise in greenhouse gas emissions in the past year. The result was a tepid outcome that fell far short of what is required to limit global warming. Key proposals for fossil-fuel transition pathways and stronger adaptation finance were either diluted, postponed or removed entirely, leaving the summit unable to match the urgency underscored by scientific evidence.
The global implications of this failure are stark. The latest emissions gap report indicates that current national policies place the planet on a trajectory of approximately 2.8°Celsius of warming, well beyond the limits agreed under the Paris Agreement and well into the territory of severe and irreversible impacts. Instead of accelerating collective action, CoP30 exposed widening fractures among regions, interest groups and political systems. The path forward now requires national leadership that is grounded in scientific evidence rather than political convenience, as well as international cooperation that does not depend on unanimity among states with conflicting interests. The window for effective action is almost shut.