In the humid heart of the Amazon, the world’s climate negotiators gathered for COP30 in Belém, Brazil, from November 10 to 21, 2025. The stakes were high: fossil fuels account for a staggering 68% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and the international community’s ability to curb their use is pivotal to keeping global warming below 1.5°C. Yet, as the conference drew to a close, hopes for a decisive plan to move the world away from coal, oil, and gas were dashed. The final communiqué contained no official roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, leaving many delegates and activists frustrated and disappointed.
According to UN Climate Change, the negotiations were fraught with complexity and tension. The Brazilian presidency, led by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, had proposed two ambitious roadmaps early in the summit: one to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030, and another to chart a path away from fossil fuels. These proposals quickly garnered support from key negotiating groups, including the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG). Momentum seemed to be building, with Colombia and Brazil taking leadership roles and rallying support from countries around the globe.
However, as the days wore on, cracks began to show. Reports surfaced of internal divisions within the Brazilian team—Environment Minister Marina Silva was said to be in favor of a robust fossil fuel roadmap, while others were more hesitant. COP CEO Ana Toni acknowledged that a fossil fuel roadmap was "a red line for many countries," though she didn’t specify which. The presidency claimed that around 80 countries opposed the inclusion of such a roadmap in the official outcome text, though some cast doubt on the accuracy of that number. The Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), Arab States, and Russia emerged as the most vocal opponents.
Despite this pushback, advocates for a roadmap did not back down. A coalition of over 80 countries publicly supported the initiative, and Colombia spearheaded the Belém Declaration for Transitioning away from Fossil Fuels, demanding concrete action. High-profile figures like the United Kingdom’s Ed Miliband and the Marshall Islands’ Tina Stege joined the call. On the sidelines, activists staged a symbolic "fossil fuel funeral" during the Great People’s March, underscoring the urgency and public demand for change.
Yet, as the summit’s final hours ticked away, the presidency released drafts of the outcome text that made no mention of fossil fuels. This omission sparked outrage among several negotiating groups and civil society organizations. At least 29 parties, including some major players, sent a letter to the presidency declaring they would not support an outcome that lacked a fossil fuel roadmap. Negotiations stretched through the night, but when the plenary reconvened on Saturday afternoon, the official text remained unchanged—save for references to the "United Arab Emirates consensus" from COP28, which had, for the first time in 2023, called for "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner."
Ultimately, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced a compromise: two roadmaps would be developed outside the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process—one focused on deforestation, the other on fossil fuel transition. These would be designed to align with an upcoming summit co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, set for April 2026 in Santa Marta, Colombia. While this move relegated the roadmaps to a lower status, it kept the conversation alive and, perhaps, opened the door for greater progress in the future.
This outcome marked the second year in a row—following COP29 in Baku, 2024—where the final text made no mention of fossil fuels. According to Bloomberg, the refusal to even name fossil fuels in the agreement reflects the enduring political power of oil exporters, who can veto language they find objectionable. Yet, paradoxically, this resistance may actually signal that the energy transition is gaining ground. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has cut its central expectation for fossil fuel consumption in 2050 by 12% since COP26 in Glasgow just four years ago. In 2025, coal consumption in China and India—the world’s two largest users—has declined for the first time in years. These are tangible, substantive changes, even if they aren’t enshrined in a UN document.
But as The Malaysian Reserve pointed out, the real battleground for climate action lies far from the conference halls of Belém. The key mechanism for progress under the Paris Agreement is the system of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—emissions-reduction plans that each government submits and updates. These plans are supposed to be clear, ambitious, and verifiable, growing stronger over time. Yet, the latest batch, outlining targets for 2035, has been deeply underwhelming. Of the 10 largest polluters responsible for three-quarters of global emissions, only the European Union and Japan have submitted credible plans. India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea haven’t submitted proposals at all. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and Indonesia have put forward plans so weak they could actually increase emissions and still claim compliance.
Why the lackluster effort? The political climate in 2025 is marked by a reluctance among major powers to accept constraints. Authoritarian leaders, many of whom are nearing 70, seem to have little personal stake in the world that will exist when these commitments come due in 2035. As Bloomberg noted, "Whether they’re promising sanctions in retaliation for TV advertisements, threatening to behead a foreign leader, invading their neighbours or bombing apartment blocks into rubble, the authoritarians in charge of the major powers don’t like to sign on to anything these days that constrains them."
Yet, amid this inertia at the highest levels, hope springs from the ground up. Around the world, citizens and subnational actors are taking matters into their own hands. In Pakistan, households are leaving fossil-fueled power grids behind in favor of cheaper solar. In Turkey, drivers are adopting electric vehicles at a faster rate than those in the U.S. or Australia. Even in the U.S., despite headlines about a resurgence of fossil fuel generation, only 11% of new power capacity under construction in 2025 is based on fossil fuels. The technology needed to solve the climate crisis—solar, wind, batteries, electric vehicles—is already available and, in many cases, cheaper than the alternatives. The primary obstacles are political and regulatory, not technical.
Looking ahead, the window for progress remains open. The upcoming international conference in Colombia and Australia’s proposed pre-COP meeting in the Pacific offer fresh opportunities to build a broad coalition for action. COP31, scheduled for Türkiye in late 2026, will be another critical moment. If the momentum seen in Belém can be sustained and translated into concrete commitments, the world may yet see the robust roadmap for fossil fuel transition that so many are demanding.
For now, the story of COP30 is one of frustration and unfinished business—but also of resilience, persistence, and the growing realization that the push for a fossil-free future will not be confined to official documents or diplomatic summits. It’s a fight that’s spilling out into the streets, boardrooms, and homes of people around the world, and it’s far from over.
