🔗 Share this article

While dawn illuminated the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, delegates remained trapped in a windowless conference room, uncertain whether it was day or night. They had been 12 hours in difficult discussions, with scores ministers representing various coalitions of countries ranging from the least developed nations to the richest economies.

Frustration mounted, the air heavy as exhausted delegates confronted the grim reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The international climate negotiations faced the brink of complete breakdown.

The central impasse: Fossil fuels

As science has told us for more than a century, the CO2 emissions produced by consuming fossil fuels is increasing temperatures on our planet to alarming levels.

However, during over three decades of regular climate meetings, the crucial requirement to stop fossil fuel use has been mentioned only once – in a resolution made two years ago at previous UN climate talks to "shift from fossil fuels". Delegates from the Gulf states, Russia, and multiple other countries were determined this would not occur another time.

Increasing pressure for change

Simultaneously, a expanding group of countries were similarly resolved that progress on this issue was crucially important. They had formulated a plan that was earning growing support and made it apparent they were prepared to dig in.

Developing countries strongly sought to move forward on securing funding support to help them address the growing impacts of extreme weather.

Turning point

In the pre-dawn period of Saturday, some delegates were prepared to leave and force a collapse. "The situation was precarious for us," stated one national delegate. "I considered to walk away."

The pivotal moment happened through negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Near 6am, senior representatives separated from the main group to hold a confidential discussion with the head Saudi negotiator. They encouraged language that would subtly reference the global commitment to "move beyond fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Unanticipated resolution

Rather than explicitly namechecking fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the Dubai agreement". Following reflection, the Saudi delegation unexpectedly agreed to the wording.

Delegates expressed relief. Applause rang out. The settlement was done.

With what became known as the "Brazil agreement", the world took a modest advance towards the systematic reduction of fossil fuels – a faltering, insufficient step that will scarcely affect the climate's steady march towards crisis. But nevertheless a notable change from total inaction.

Major components of the agreement

• In addition to the subtle acknowledgment in the legally agreed text, countries will commence creating a roadmap to systematically reduce fossil fuels
• This will be primarily a non-binding program led by Brazil that will report back next year
• Addressing the essential decreases in greenhouse gas emissions to stay within the 1.5C limit was also put off to next year
• Developing countries secured a threefold increase to $120bn of regular financial support to help them manage 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 fossil fuel sectors shift to the clean economy

Differing opinions

While our planet approaches the brink of climate "tipping points" that could eliminate habitats and plunge whole regions into disorder, the agreement was insufficient as the "giant leap" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some small advances in the right direction, but considering the scale of the climate crisis, it has failed to rise to the occasion," stated one policy director.

This flawed deal might have been all that was possible, given the political challenges – including a US president who shunned the talks and remains wedded to oil and coal, the increasing presence of rightwing populism, continuing wars in multiple regions, extreme measures of inequality, and global economic volatility.

"The climate arsonists – the fossil fuel giants – were ultimately in the focus at these negotiations," says one climate activist. "This represents progress on that. The platform is accessible. Now we must convert it to a real fire escape to a safer world."

Deep fissures revealed

Even as nations were able to welcome the gavelling through of the deal, Cop30 also highlighted significant divisions in the primary worldwide framework for tackling the climate crisis.

"UN negotiations are consensus-based, and in a era of international tensions, agreement is ever harder to reach," observed one global leader. "We should not suggest that Cop30 has delivered everything that is needed. The difference between present circumstances and what evidence necessitates remains concerningly substantial."

When the world is to avert the most severe impacts of climate breakdown, the international negotiations alone will not be nearly enough.