If we lacked photographs and videos, I would hardly accept the visuals that emerged from this year’s UN climate discussions.
In recent weeks in Belem, Brazil, participants faced severe heat and intense flooding, and at one moment an actual fire erupted, postponing discussions. The symbolism was nearly unbearable.
Although many, including Brazil’s president, depicted this year’s summit as one of action, the negotiations concluded with a diluted agreement. The final text omits the term “fossil fuels.”
As emissions and global temperatures set new records again this year, I find myself questioning: Why is it so challenging to officially recognize what is driving the issue?
This marks the 30th meeting of leaders at the Conference of the Parties, or COP, an annual UN summit centered on climate change. COP30 also commemorates a decade since the assembly that produced the Paris Agreement, where global powers pledged to limit temperature increases to “well below” 2.0 °C above preindustrial levels, aiming to stay beneath the 1.5 °C threshold. (That translates to 3.6 °F and 2.7 °F, respectively, for my fellow Americans.)
Prior to the commencement of this year’s event, the president of host nation Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, characterized it as the “implementation COP” and urged negotiators to concentrate on action, specifically to provide a roadmap for a global shift away from fossil fuels.
The science is unequivocal—combustion of fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases and fuels climate change. Studies have indicated that achieving the target of capping warming at 1.5 °C necessitates halting new fossil-fuel exploration and production.
The challenge lies in the fact that “fossil fuels” might as well be taboo at global climate discussions. Two years prior, disputes over how to tackle fossil fuels brought negotiations at COP28 to a halt. (It’s notable that the conference was held in Dubai in the UAE, with its chief being the leader of the nation’s oil company.)
The agreement in Dubai ultimately included a provision calling on nations to transition away from fossil fuels in their energy frameworks. It fell short of what numerous activists desired, which was a more direct call to completely phase out fossil fuels. Yet, it was still celebrated as a success. As I remarked at the time: “The bar is truly on the floor.”
And yet this year, it appears we’ve plumbed even deeper.
At one juncture, approximately 80 nations, just under half of those in attendance, insisted on a definitive strategy to phase out fossil fuels.
However, oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia were adamant that fossil fuels should not be specifically targeted. Other countries, including several in Africa and Asia, raised a very legitimate point: Western nations such as the US have been the largest consumers of fossil fuels and have prospered from it economically. This group contends that historical polluters carry a distinct obligation to fund the transition for poorer and developing nations rather than simply prohibiting them from following the same developmental path.
The US, by the way, did not send an official delegation to the discussions, for the first time in three decades. But the absence conveyed a significant message. In a statement to the New York Times that circumvented the COP discussions, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers claimed that President Trump had “set a strong example for the rest of the world” by advancing new fossil-fuel initiatives.
To summarize: Some nations rely economically on fossil fuels, some are reluctant to cease their dependence on fossil fuels without incentives from others, and the current US administration prefers to continue utilizing fossil fuels rather than transitioning to alternative energy sources.
All these factors together help clarify why, in its final iteration, COP30’s agreement does not mention fossil fuels whatsoever. Instead, there’s a vague statement calling on leaders to consider the commitments made in Dubai, along with an acknowledgment that the “global transition towards low greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible and indicative of future trends.”
Hopefully, that holds true. However, it’s troubling that even on the most significant global platform, recognizing what we need to move away from and formulating any tangible plan to achieve it seems insurmountable.
This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
