As the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) drew to a close on November 22, 2025, in the humid heart of Belém, Brazil, the world’s climate community was left with a mix of disappointment, frustration, and cautious hope. Billed as the “COP of Truth” by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the summit was expected to deliver bold steps toward ending the fossil fuel era and safeguarding the planet’s future. Instead, it became a showcase for the ongoing struggle to unite nearly 200 nations behind decisive climate action—despite mounting evidence of intensifying climate disasters and a groundswell of public demand for change.
According to TEMPO.CO, the Justice Coalition for Our Planet (JustCOP) and leading environmental groups, including Greenpeace Indonesia, publicly decried the summit’s outcome as a failure to rise to the moment. Leonard Simanjuntak, Country Director of Greenpeace Indonesia, minced no words in a written statement: “There are no concrete commitments and plans, either to end the fossil fuel era, stop deforestation, increase global climate funding, or to close the gaps in achieving the safe limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius set in the Paris Agreement.” He accused several countries of hypocrisy for ignoring the impacts of climate disasters affecting hundreds of millions, while Indonesia, he said, was “a mere spectator,” failing to uphold its constitutional responsibility to support multilateralism.
The conference, which convened nearly 60,000 delegates—making it the second largest in COP history—was marked by dramatic scenes both inside and outside the negotiation halls. Technical glitches, sweltering heat, and even interruptions from flood and fire underscored the real-world urgency of the climate crisis, as reported by The Conversation. Yet, even as delegates sweated through marathon talks at the edge of the Amazon, the outcome fell short of the ambitious hopes with which many arrived.
One of the most contentious issues was the phase-out of fossil fuels. Brazil, as host, had championed a roadmap to end reliance on coal, oil, and gas—a plan supported by more than 80 countries, including some major fossil fuel exporters like Norway and Australia. However, fierce opposition from nations such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, and several emerging economies ultimately stripped all mention of a fossil fuel phase-out from the final text. Instead, countries agreed to launch the Global Implementation Accelerator, a new initiative intended to “keep 1.5°C within reach,” to be led by Brazil and the next COP hosts, Turkey and Australia. President Lula vowed to continue pushing for a fossil fuel roadmap at the G20, while Colombia and the Netherlands announced plans to host a conference on the issue in April 2026.
Greenpeace and JustCOP were particularly critical of the lack of concrete commitments to end the fossil fuel era, stop deforestation, or address the funding gaps needed to achieve the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target. “Scientifically COP30 has been nothing less than a failure,” declared Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in an interview with FRANCE 24. He emphasized that while more funding for countries to adapt to extreme weather was agreed, there were “no explicit details to phase out fossil fuels or strengthen countries’ inadequate emissions-cutting plans, which dozens of nations had demanded.”
Funding was another major sticking point. Developed countries, long seen as bearing ecological debts due to their historical emissions, refused to agree on robust funding provisions for adaptation, mitigation, or the transition away from fossil fuels. Although a headline agreement was reached to triple adaptation funding to US$120 billion per year, the target date was pushed back from 2030 to 2035, and the baseline for funding remained unclear. Many developing countries, especially those most vulnerable to climate impacts, viewed this as a significant letdown. The absence of a US government delegation—the first such occurrence at a COP—cast a long shadow over the finance discussions, with new pledges falling short of expectations.
Yet, it wasn’t all doom and gloom. As The Conversation noted, Brazil’s own Tropical Forest Facility initiative achieved a record $9.5 billion in funding pledges, with 92 countries backing a roadmap to end deforestation. This trust fund is designed to protect rainforests and Indigenous lands, including the Amazon, which plays a vital role as a global carbon sink. The success of this initiative pointed to the growing importance of the COP’s Action Agenda, which brings together business, investors, and civil society to drive climate action outside the often-stalled formal negotiations.
One of the summit’s most lauded achievements was the creation of a Just Transition Mechanism, described by JustCOP as containing “ambitious and comprehensive language on human rights, workers’ rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, and strong references to gender equality, women’s empowerment, education, and youth development.” Torry Kuswardono, executive director of the Pikul Foundation, acknowledged progress in centering indigenous communities but lamented the lack of significant decisions on tenure rights and natural resource management. “There is no specific chamber in the negotiations concerning tenure rights which are closely related to local knowledge and biodiversity,” he observed, underscoring the incomplete nature of the outcome.
Meanwhile, Indonesia found itself in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. The country received the negative “Fossil of the Day” award for bringing a 46-person delegation that included fossil fuel industry lobbyists—an overwhelming presence that environmentalists found alarming. Pius Ginting, coordinator of Ecological Action and People’s Emancipation, stressed that as the world’s main supplier of nickel for the energy transition, Indonesia’s own communities still face pollution and environmental degradation. He argued that the Just Transition Mechanism must ensure access to safer, low-pollution technology supported by research and public funding.
The absence of US leadership was felt acutely. Traditionally a major funder, the US’s retreat left a void that neither the European Union nor China seemed willing to fill. China, for its part, focused on its domestic energy transition and resisted new European trade measures targeting emissions-intensive production, despite its clean tech exports having the potential to cut global emissions. This left smaller nations, Indigenous peoples, and civil society to lead the call for urgency and adherence to scientific guidance.
Outside the conference halls, public pressure was palpable. An estimated 70,000 people marched through Belém’s streets, staging a mock funeral for fossil fuels—a vivid demonstration of the growing demand for decisive climate action. As Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate Executive Secretary, put it during the talks, nations needed to “give a little to get a lot.” But as the dust settles, many feel they gave a lot and got very little in return.
For all its setbacks, COP30 did succeed in keeping the global conversation alive and in highlighting the rift between ambition and action. Nearly half of the 194 participating countries signaled their readiness to move away from fossil fuels, even if consensus remains elusive. The climate crisis, it seems, is forcing the world’s negotiators to confront not only the science but the politics—and, increasingly, the reality—that the old ways of doing business are running out of time.
The struggle for climate justice and a sustainable future continues, with eyes now turning to the G20, the upcoming conference in Colombia, and the next round of UN talks in Turkey and Australia. Whether the world can bridge the gap between promises and progress remains the defining question of our era.
