🔗 Share this article

When dawn crept over the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, representatives remained confined in a airless conference room, oblivious whether it was day or night. They had been 12 hours in strained discussions, with dozens ministers representing multiple blocs of countries including the poorest nations to the most developed economies.

Frustration mounted, the air thick as sweaty delegates confronted the grim reality: they were unlikely to achieve a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The 30th UN climate conference hovered near the brink of abject failure.

The central impasse: Fossil fuels

As science has told us for nearly a century, the CO2 emissions produced by burning fossil fuels is heating up our planet to critical levels.

Yet, during over three decades of annual climate meetings, the crucial requirement to cease fossil fuel use has been mentioned only once – in a agreement made two years ago at the Dubai climate summit to "transition away from fossil fuels". Delegates from the Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and multiple other countries were determined this would not happen again.

Increasing pressure for change

At the same time, a growing number of countries were just as committed that advancement on this issue was crucially important. They had developed a proposal that was gathering growing support and made it evident they were willing to stand their ground.

Less wealthy nations desperately wanted to make progress on securing economic resources to help them cope with the increasingly severe impacts of environmental crises.

Critical moment

During the night of Saturday, some delegates were willing to withdraw and trigger failure. "It was on the edge for us," commented one national delegate. "I was ready to walk away."

The breakthrough happened through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Around 6am, senior representatives separated from the main group to hold a closed-door meeting with the head Saudi negotiator. They urged wording that would obliquely recognise the global commitment to "move beyond fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Unanticipated resolution

As opposed to explicitly namechecking fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the previous commitment". Following reflection, the Saudi delegation unexpectedly accepted the wording.

Delegates collapsed into relief. Applause rang out. The deal was finalized.

With what became known as the "Brazil agreement", the world took a modest advance towards the systematic reduction of fossil fuels – a uncertain, limited step that will barely interrupt the climate's steady march towards catastrophe. But nevertheless a notable change from complete stagnation.

Important aspects of the agreement

• Complementing the indirect reference in the legally agreed text, countries will start developing a framework to phase out fossil fuels
• This will be mostly a optional undertaking led by Brazil that will deliver findings 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 climate disasters
• This funding will not be delivered in full until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in polluting businesses move toward the renewable industry

Mixed reactions

With global conditions teeters on the brink of climate "tipping points" that could eliminate habitats and plunge whole regions into chaos, the agreement was far from the "significant advancement" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some baby steps in the proper course, but in light of the scale of the climate crisis, it has fallen short of the occasion," stated one environmental analyst.

This flawed deal might have been all that was possible, given the geopolitical headwinds – including a US president who ignored the talks and remains aligned with oil and coal, the rising tide of rightwing populism, persistent fighting in different locations, extreme measures of inequality, and global economic volatility.

"Major polluters – the fossil fuel giants – were at last in the focus at the climate summit," says one environmental advocate. "There is no turning back on that. The political space is open. Now we must convert it to a genuine solution to a safer world."

Significant divisions revealed

Even as nations were able to welcome the gavelling through of the deal, Cop30 also highlighted significant divisions in the sole international mechanism for confronting the climate crisis.

"Climate conferences are unanimity-required, and in a period of international tensions, unanimity is increasingly difficult to reach," stated one senior UN official. "We should not suggest that this summit has delivered everything that is needed. The difference between present circumstances and what research requires remains dangerously wide."

Should the world is to prevent the most severe impacts of climate breakdown, the international negotiations alone will fall far short.