🔗 Share this article

When dawn illuminated the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, negotiators remained trapped in a windowless conference room, unaware whether it was day or night. Having spent 12 hours in strained discussions, with dozens ministers representing multiple blocs of countries including the poorest nations to the richest economies.

Patience wore thin, the air heavy as weary delegates faced up to the sobering 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

Research has demonstrated for nearly a century, the greenhouse gases produced by consuming fossil fuels is heating up our planet to critical levels.

However, during over three decades of annual climate meetings, the crucial requirement to halt fossil fuel use has been referenced only once – in a resolution made two years ago at Cop28 to "shift from fossil fuels". Representatives from the Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and a few other countries were determined this would not occur another time.

Growing momentum for change

Simultaneously, a expanding group of countries were similarly resolved that progress on this issue was crucially important. They had formulated a initiative that was attracting expanding support and made it clear they were prepared to stand their ground.

Less wealthy nations strongly sought to advance on securing economic resources to help them address the already disastrous impacts of environmental crises.

Critical moment

During the night of Saturday, some delegates were willing to leave and cause breakdown. "The situation was precarious for us," commented one national delegate. "I was ready to walk away."

The pivotal moment happened through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Around 6am, senior representatives left the main group to hold a confidential discussion with the lead Saudi negotiator. They encouraged text that would subtly reference the global commitment to "move beyond fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Surprising consensus

As opposed to explicitly namechecking fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the Dubai agreement". Following reflection, the Saudi delegation surprisingly approved the wording.

The room showed visible relief. Celebrations began. The settlement was done.

With what became known as the "Brazil agreement", the world took an incremental move towards the phaseout of fossil fuels – a faltering, inadequate step that will barely interrupt the climate's continued progression towards crisis. But nevertheless a notable change from complete stagnation.

Major components of the agreement

• Complementing the subtle acknowledgment in the formal agreement, countries will commence creating a framework to systematically reduce fossil fuels
• This will be primarily a optional undertaking led by Brazil that will deliver findings next year
• Addressing the required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to remain below the 1.5C limit was similarly postponed to next year
• Developing countries obtained a tripling to $120bn of yearly funding to help them cope with the impacts of extreme weather
• This sum will not be completely provided until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "equitable change process" to help people working in fossil fuel sectors shift to the sustainable sector

Mixed reactions

As the world teeters on the brink of climate "critical thresholds" that could eliminate habitats and force whole regions into crisis, the agreement was insufficient as the "giant leap" needed.

"The summit provided some baby steps in the correct path, but in light of the magnitude of the climate crisis, it has fallen short of the occasion," stated one environmental analyst.

This flawed deal might have been the maximum achievable, given the geopolitical headwinds – including a Washington administration who shunned the talks and remains aligned with oil and coal, the growing influence of rightwing populism, continuing wars in multiple regions, intolerable levels of inequality, and global economic instability.

"The climate arsonists – the energy conglomerates – were at last in the focus at these negotiations," says one policy convener. "This represents progress on that. The political space is available. Now we must convert it to a genuine solution to a protected environment."

Deep fissures revealed

Although nations were able to celebrate the official adoption of the deal, Cop30 also exposed major disagreements in the only global process for confronting the climate crisis.

"UN negotiations are consensus-based, and in a period of global disagreements, agreement is ever harder to reach," commented one senior UN official. "It would be dishonest to claim that these talks has delivered everything that is needed. The gap between where we are and what evidence necessitates remains concerningly substantial."

Should the world is to avert the gravest consequences of climate breakdown, the global discussions alone will fall far short.