🔗 Share this article

While dawn was breaking the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, delegates remained trapped in a airless conference room, oblivious whether it was day or night. Having spent 12 hours in difficult discussions, with dozens ministers representing 17 groups of countries from the poorest nations to the richest economies.

Frustration mounted, the air stifling as weary delegates faced up to the grim reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The 30th UN climate conference teetered on the brink of total collapse.

The sticking point: Fossil fuels

As science has told us for more than a century, the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels is warming our planet to alarming levels.

Yet, during more than three decades of regular climate meetings, the essential necessity to stop fossil fuel use has been referenced only once – in a agreement made two years ago at Cop28 to "shift from fossil fuels". Delegates from the Gulf states, Russia, and multiple other countries were determined this would not happen again.

Mounting support for change

Simultaneously, a growing number of countries were similarly resolved that progress on this issue was urgently necessary. They had created a plan that was earning increasing support and made it clear they were ready to hold firm.

Emerging economies desperately wanted to advance on securing economic resources to help them address the increasingly severe impacts of extreme weather.

Critical moment

By the early hours of Saturday, some delegates were ready to walk out and cause breakdown. "The situation was precarious for us," remarked one national delegate. "I was ready to walk away."

The pivotal moment came through negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Around 6am, key negotiators split from the main group to hold a private conversation with the lead Saudi negotiator. They pressed language that would indirectly acknowledge the global commitment to "move beyond fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Unexpected agreement

As opposed to explicitly referencing fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the UAE consensus". Upon deliberation, the Saudi delegation unexpectedly agreed to the wording.

The room expressed relief. Cheers erupted. The settlement was completed.

With what became known as the "Brazil agreement", the world took an incremental move towards the systematic reduction of fossil fuels – a hesitant, limited step that will minimally impact the climate's steady march towards disaster. But nevertheless a notable change from total inaction.

Important aspects of the agreement

• Complementing the oblique commitment in the formal agreement, countries will begin work a plan to gradually eliminate fossil fuels
• This will be mostly a non-binding program led by Brazil that will provide updates next year
• Addressing the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to remain below the 1.5C limit was likewise deferred to next year
• Developing countries achieved a threefold increase to $120bn of annual finance to help them cope with the impacts of extreme weather
• This funding will not be completely provided until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in high-carbon industries transition to the sustainable sector

Differing opinions

With global conditions approaches the brink of climate "tipping points" that could destroy ecosystems and plunge whole regions into crisis, the agreement was insufficient as the "significant advancement" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some modest progress in the proper course, but in light of the scale of the climate crisis, it has fallen short of the occasion," warned one policy director.

This flawed deal might have been all that was possible, given the international tensions – including a American leader who ignored the talks and remains aligned with oil and coal, the rising tide of rightwing populism, persistent fighting in multiple regions, extreme measures of inequality, and global economic volatility.

"The climate arsonists – the oil and gas companies – were finally in the crosshairs at Cop30," says one environmental advocate. "There is no turning back on that. The political space is accessible. Now we must transform it into a real fire escape to a protected environment."

Major disagreements revealed

Even as nations were able to celebrate the formal approval of the deal, Cop30 also highlighted major disagreements in the sole international mechanism for confronting the climate crisis.

"International summits are unanimity-required, and in a era of geopolitical divides, agreement is increasingly difficult to reach," stated one global leader. "It would be dishonest to claim that these talks has provided all that is needed. The gap between where we are and what science demands remains dangerously wide."

If the world is to avoid the most severe impacts of climate collapse, the international negotiations alone will prove insufficient.