🔗 Share this article

When dawn was breaking the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, negotiators remained confined in a enclosed conference room, uncertain whether it was day or night. They had been 12 hours in difficult discussions, with scores ministers representing multiple blocs of countries from the least developed nations to the most developed economies.

Patience wore thin, the air heavy as sweaty delegates acknowledged the grim reality: they would not reach a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The international climate negotiations teetered on the brink of complete breakdown.

The major obstacle: Fossil fuels

Scientific evidence has shown for well over a century, the greenhouse gases produced by consuming fossil fuels is warming our planet to critical levels.

Yet, during over three decades of annual climate meetings, the essential necessity to halt fossil fuel use has been addressed only once – in a resolution made two years ago at previous UN climate talks to "shift from fossil fuels". Officials from the Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and a few other countries were determined this would not be repeated.

Mounting support for change

Meanwhile, a increasing coalition of countries were just as committed that progress on this issue was crucially important. They had formulated a initiative that was earning growing support and made it clear they were ready to stand their ground.

Less wealthy nations strongly sought to move forward on securing funding support to help them cope with the increasingly severe impacts of extreme weather.

Breaking point

In the pre-dawn period of Saturday, some delegates were ready to leave and force a collapse. "We were close for us," remarked one national delegate. "I was prepared to walk away."

The breakthrough came through talks with Saudi Arabia. Around 6am, senior representatives separated from the main group to hold a private conversation with the lead Saudi negotiator. They urged wording that would subtly reference the global commitment to "shift from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Surprising consensus

Rather than explicitly namechecking fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the previous commitment". After consideration, the Saudi delegation unforeseeably agreed to the wording.

Participants expressed relief. Celebrations began. The deal was done.

With what became known as the "Brazil agreement", the world took a modest advance towards the phaseout of fossil fuels – a faltering, limited step that will barely interrupt the climate's steady march towards catastrophe. But nevertheless a significant departure from absolute paralysis.

Major components of the agreement

• Alongside the indirect reference in the legally agreed text, countries will commence creating a plan to systematically reduce fossil fuels
• This will be mostly a optional undertaking led by Brazil that will report back next year
• Addressing the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to remain below the 1.5C limit was also put off to next year
• Developing countries obtained a tripling to $120bn of annual finance to help them cope with the impacts of extreme weather
• This sum will not be completely provided until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in high-carbon industries shift to the sustainable sector

Differing opinions

With global conditions teeters on the brink of climate "critical thresholds" that could destroy ecosystems and force whole regions into crisis, the agreement was far from the "major breakthrough" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some modest progress in the right direction, but in light of the severity of the climate crisis, it has failed to rise to the occasion," warned one climate expert.

This imperfect deal might have been all that was possible, given the international tensions – including a Washington administration who ignored the talks and remains wedded to oil and coal, the growing influence of nationalist politics, continuing wars in multiple regions, intolerable levels of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

"Major polluters – the energy conglomerates – were ultimately in the crosshairs at Cop30," comments one environmental advocate. "This represents progress on that. The political space is available. Now we must transform it into a actual pathway to a safer world."

Significant divisions revealed

While nations were able to applaud the gavelling through of the deal, Cop30 also revealed deep fissures in the primary worldwide framework for confronting the climate crisis.

"UN negotiations are unanimity-required, and in a era of global disagreements, agreement is increasingly difficult to reach," stated one international diplomat. "We should not suggest that these talks has provided all that is needed. The difference between our current position and what science demands remains concerningly substantial."

When the world is to avert the most severe impacts of climate collapse, the global discussions alone will prove insufficient.