As the dust settles in Belém, Brazil, after the 30th annual United Nations climate summit (COP30), the world is left to reckon with a mix of progress, disappointment, and stubborn divisions that continue to define the international fight against climate change. The summit, which concluded on November 23, 2025, brought together nearly 200 countries under the soaring tent of a former airport, now transformed into a city park. Yet, despite the Amazonian setting and the urgency in the air, COP30 fell short of delivering the transformative action many had hoped for.
While the gathering was branded as the “rainforest COP,” and Brazil’s President publicly called for a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, the final agreement skirted around the elephant in the room: there was no explicit commitment to end fossil fuel use or halt deforestation. Instead, the consensus text focused on increasing funding for climate adaptation in low-income countries, with a pledge to raise $120 billion annually by 2035. This financial boost is intended to help the world’s most vulnerable nations cope with extreme weather and rising seas—effects that are already being felt in communities from the Maldives to the Amazon. According to The Associated Press, experts see momentum in these new funding pledges and in the push for implementation, even as they lament the lack of a fossil fuel phaseout plan.
Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), struck a cautiously optimistic note in his closing remarks: “We knew this COP would take place in stormy political waters. Denial, division, and geopolitics has dealt international cooperation some heavy blows this year. But friends: COP30 showed that climate cooperation is alive and kicking, keeping humanity in the fight for a livable planet. I’m not saying we’re winning the climate fight. But we are undeniably still in it.”
Yet beneath the surface, tensions simmered. The venue itself seemed to mirror the planet’s turmoil: delegates and activists endured torrential rain, leaking roofs, power outages, stifling heat, and even a fire. Meanwhile, thousands took part in side events and protests, with Indigenous groups and civil society holding a parallel People’s Summit across town to emphasize land rights and challenge market-based solutions.
One of the summit’s defining debates centered on whether COP30 would launch a concrete roadmap for phasing out coal, oil, and gas—the main culprits behind global warming. Over 80 nations, including Brazil, supported such a move, but powerful oil-producing states like Saudi Arabia and Russia, joined at times by the United States (which notably did not send an official delegation this year), blocked any mention of fossil fuel phaseout. As Penn Perry World House experts observed, this “coalition of the drilling” effectively held the process hostage, leveraging the UN’s consensus rule to prevent any robust commitment on mitigation ambition.
Haitham al-Ghais, Secretary General of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), defended this stance, stating at the summit: “We all want to see global emissions reduced. In fact, this is the core objective of the UNFCCC, rather than picking and choosing energy sources.” The impasse left many negotiators and climate advocates frustrated. Panama’s climate negotiator, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, summed up the mood: “This should have been the moment. A COP in the Amazon, a president calling for a fossil fuel transition road map, the science screaming for action. But the world blinked again.”
In response to the deadlock, Brazil, Colombia, and the Netherlands announced new voluntary initiatives outside the official UN process. The Brazilian-led Tropical Forests Forever Fund, for instance, has already raised $5.5 billion from more than 50 countries, aiming to pay tropical nations to keep their forests standing. Meanwhile, Colombia and the Netherlands launched the Belém Declaration, a call for a just transition away from fossil fuels. Colombia is set to host a separate conference on this issue in April 2026. Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law praised this development, saying, “The Belém Declaration marks a turning point: Colombia and other high ambition countries are showing the way on fossil fuel phaseout. And that way requires moving forward through good faith cooperation outside the UNFCCC.”
Despite these parallel efforts, experts warn that voluntary roadmaps lack the binding force of official UN agreements. Mariana Paoli of Christian Aid noted, “They don’t have power on their own, but they can create the structure around which real change is built.” The COP30 presidency also highlighted 117 “action agenda” items, mostly geared toward business commitments—ranging from a $1 trillion pledge for renewable energy grids and storage, to industrial decarbonization plans, and new funding for adaptation and forest preservation.
Yet, as Penn Perry World House scholars pointed out, the summit’s outcomes reflect a deeper malaise. The absence of the United States—a traditional leader in climate diplomacy—left a vacuum that other powers, including China and oil-rich states, were quick to fill. William Burke-White, a professor at Penn Carey Law, warned, “When Washington stays off the field, others fill the space. At COP30, that means China, oil-rich states, and other authoritarian or tightly managed regimes are stepping up with capital, influence, and governance models that challenge the long-standing U.S. role.”
The summit did see incremental progress on adaptation. Parties agreed to a Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) package, including 59 indicators to measure resilience across sectors like food, water, health, and infrastructure. The agreement also calls for tripling adaptation finance by 2035, building on last year’s commitments. Hajja Naseem, a former climate minister for the Maldives, acknowledged the achievement but expressed disappointment at the lack of ambition: “The ambition level of the outcome is disappointing, especially on missing the moment for limiting the global temperature rise to less than 1.5C; an overshoot of the temperature goal is an existential threat to the small island developing states.”
Meanwhile, the summit underscored the growing linkages between climate and biodiversity policy. Efforts were made to better connect the UNFCCC process with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification. Regional leadership from Latin America, especially on the value of forests and the need for economic alternatives to deforestation, was a bright spot amid the gloom.
Looking ahead, COP31 is set to take place in Turkey in late 2026, with Australia and Turkey announcing an innovative partnership to co-host the event. The hope is that, with new leadership and lessons learned from Belém, the next summit will push further—and faster—toward the ambitious goals the world so desperately needs. As Michael Weisberg of Penn Perry World House put it, “Judged in isolation, COP30 felt bleak. Judged within the larger process, it represents small but real steps forward. The process held, and meaningful progress was made on adaptation. Here’s hoping the Turkish COP pushes further … and faster!”
For now, the world remains at a crossroads—caught between incremental progress and the urgent need for transformative change. The “giant boulder of climate action,” as Katharine Hayhoe of The Nature Conservancy described it, is rolling in the right direction, but whether it gathers enough momentum before time runs out remains to be seen.
