COP30 in Belém concluded on Saturday night, more than a day behind schedule, as a heavy Amazonian rainstorm pounded the conference center. The UN framework held up, just as it had over the past three weeks despite fires, intense tropical heat, and fierce political attacks on the global system of environmental governance.
On the final day, dozens of agreements were approved as humanity worked together to tackle the most complex and dangerous challenge our species has ever faced. The process was chaotic and nearly fell apart, saved only by last-minute talks that stretched into the early morning. Veteran observers remarked that the Paris Agreement was on life support.
But it survived—at least for now. The outcome fell far short of what’s needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Funding for adaptation in countries hardest hit by extreme weather was significantly lacking. Rainforest protection received little attention, even though this was the first climate summit held in the Amazon. And with global power still heavily tilted toward oil, gas, and coal interests, the main agreement didn’t even mention “fossil fuels.”
Despite these shortcomings, COP30 opened new discussions on reducing dependence on petrochemicals and expanded participation by Indigenous groups and scientists. It made progress toward stronger just transition policies and nudged wealthy nations to open their wallets a bit wider. Opinions are now divided over whether COP30 was a success, a failure, or a compromise—but any judgment must consider the geopolitical challenges surrounding the talks. Here are five threats that must be avoided at next year’s climate summit in Turkey.
1. Global Leadership Vacuum
The U.S. walked out, and China didn’t step up. Many of the conference’s problems could have been avoided if these two climate superpowers—the largest historical and current emitters—had coordinated as they did before Donald Trump took office. Instead, Trump has attacked climate science, criticized the UN, and hosted a summit with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Unsurprisingly, Saudi Arabia felt empowered at COP30 to block any mention of fossil fuels, despite earlier agreements at COP28 in Dubai.
China, while present in Belém and supportive of its BRICS partner Brazil, made it clear it wouldn’t take the U.S.’s place in financing or lead on issues beyond renewable energy manufacturing and sales.
2. Divided Brazil, Divided World
A major rift in global politics lies between extraction and conservation interests. One side pushes to expand agriculture, mine deeper, and ignore the damage to forests and oceans. The other warns that these activities are pushing planetary limits, with catastrophic effects on climate, nature, and health. This division is worldwide and was evident at COP30, where Brazil’s messaging seemed mixed. Environment Secretary Marina Silva pushed for a roadmap away from fossil fuels and deforestation, while the foreign ministry—long a promoter of agribusiness and oil—was more hesitant, requiring intervention from President Lula. As a result, the Amazon rainforest received only a brief, vague mention in the main agreement.
3. European Parsimony and the Rise of the Far Right
Europe has often positioned itself as a climate leader, but it faced heavy criticism for its limited financial contributions and the growing influence of far-right parties, which threaten to undermine climate ambition.At COP30, the European Union faced criticism for failing to deliver on its climate finance promises to developing countries. The bloc was deeply divided, partly due to the rise of far-right parties in many member states. As a result, the EU postponed its updated national climate plan and only decided midway through the Belém conference to make a fossil fuel transition roadmap one of its non-negotiable demands. This was, at best, poorly handled, since such significant issues require much earlier coordination. Unsurprisingly, many participants from the Global South suspected this sudden emphasis on the roadmap was a tactic to delay action on adaptation funding.
Conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and elsewhere diverted attention and resources away from the conference. European officials noted that their budgets were increasingly directed toward rearmament in response to threats from Russia, leading to cuts in overseas development aid. This makes it even harder to secure funds for climate finance. While polls show that most people worldwide want their governments to do more about the climate crisis, public awareness of climate talks is waning. None of the major U.S. news networks sent teams to Belém, and European reporters struggled to get their stories aired. This sense of defeatism contrasts sharply with the vibrant energy seen on the streets and rivers of Belém.
The United Nations, which will turn 80 next year, is showing its age. The consensus-based decision-making at COP gives any country veto power—a system that may have worked during the Cold War but is inadequate now that humanity faces an existential threat. At COP30, frustration was palpable, especially among small island states. Dozens of ambitious nations, led by Colombia, issued their own Belém Declaration and announced plans for a parallel process to phase out fossil fuels, with a first conference scheduled for next April in Santa Marta, Colombia. While organizers say this is meant to complement the UN process, it could widen the divide between major fossil fuel producers and renewable energy advocates.
Politically, such a split may be inevitable, but the global economy is shifting toward cheaper renewable energy, and demographic trends are increasing the influence of the Global South. Underpinning it all are the relentless realities of the climate crisis, which cannot be vetoed. These realities demand a more dynamic and reformed system of global governance—otherwise, the Paris Agreement may not survive future COPs unscathed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the five obstacles to climate progress at a hypothetical COP30 framed in a natural conversational tone with clear direct answers
General Beginner Questions
1 What is COP30
COP30 is a future major international climate summit where world leaders scientists and negotiators meet to agree on plans to tackle climate change Its the 30th session of the Conference of the Parties under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
2 What are the main obstacles that could hurt progress at COP30
While we cant predict the future based on past events major obstacles could include the political influence of leaders like Donald Trump ongoing international wars and conflicts and a lack of consistent media coverage
3 Why would a leader like Donald Trump be an obstacle to a climate conference
A leader who is skeptical of climate science or international agreements can undermine global efforts For example they might pull a major country like the US out of agreements refuse to fund climate initiatives or discourage other nations from making strong commitments
4 How do wars and conflicts affect climate progress
Wars divert massive amounts of money political attention and resources away from climate action and toward military spending and humanitarian crises They also create immense distrust between nations making it nearly impossible to reach cooperative global agreements
5 What does media absence mean in this context
It means that major news outlets might not give the climate summit the prominent sustained coverage it needs They might focus on more immediate stories like political scandals or conflicts leaving the public uninformed and reducing the pressure on leaders to act
Advanced Detailed Questions
6 Beyond pulling out of agreements how can a single leaders policies impact global climate negotiations
Their policies can create a domino effect If a major economy stops its clean energy transition it can slow down global green technology markets It also gives cover to other reluctant countries to weaken their own pledges arguing that if a top emitter isnt acting why should they
7 Can you give a realworld example of how war has directly hindered climate action
The war in Ukraine is a prime example It triggered a global energy crisis causing some nations to revert to burning more coal and fossil fuels for security despite their climate goals It also shattered cooperation between Russia and Western nations who are essential
