In November 2025, the city of Belém do Pará in Brazil became the epicenter of the world’s climate debate, hosting the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. For nearly a month, more than 55,000 participants—including government leaders, scientists, young people, indigenous peoples, and faith communities—gathered at the gateway to the Amazon, determined to shape the future of the planet. But while the setting brimmed with hope and urgency, the summit’s outcomes revealed the complexities and shifting power dynamics of global climate diplomacy.
According to Evangelical Focus, COP30’s Amazonian location lent the event a special significance. The city’s limited infrastructure was stretched to its limits, with many attendees finding shelter in homes, on boats, or with local churches. “The warmth and hospitality we received was a beautiful reminder of how faith is also expressed in how we welcome our neighbours,” reflected Juliana Morillo, a participant in the Christian Climate Observer Programme (CCOP).
The summit’s official negotiations were as intricate as they were contentious. Delegates from over 190 countries convened to address the climate crisis, but as a first-time observer from India noted in The Hindu, “the scale of it is difficult to convey.” The conference highlighted the enduring divide between developed and developing nations. The Group of 77 and China insisted that climate ambition must be matched by financial support, guided by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. In contrast, the European Union, leading the developed bloc, championed strict emissions limits in line with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal. Yet, from the perspective of many developing countries, these targets appeared disconnected from the realities of finance and development.
The absence of the United States at the federal level—an unprecedented move since the 1990s—cast a long shadow over the proceedings. As reported by Internationale Politik Quarterly, the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and public criticism of COP30 undermined Western leadership and multilateralism. “The US withdrawal diminished the leadership role of the developed world and shifted the focus to developing countries,” the article noted, quoting former US climate envoy John Kerry’s assessment that the US had become a “denier, delayer and divider” on climate change.
With Washington absent, the burden of leadership shifted to the European Union and other developed nations. The EU, under climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra and Danish minister Lars Aagaard, held firm on the need for mitigation to be reflected in the summit’s outcome. More than 80 countries supported the inclusion of a fossil-fuel-phase-out roadmap in the final document. However, resistance from oil-exporting nations—particularly Saudi Arabia and Russia—as well as major emerging economies like China and India, led to the removal of this roadmap from the official text. The final “Belém Political Package” did not include binding commitments to eliminate fossil fuels or halt deforestation, a result that disappointed many advocates for ambitious climate action.
Despite these setbacks, some progress was made. The summit committed to at least tripling adaptation finance by 2035, introduced a new mechanism to support a just transition, and established a two-year work programme on climate finance from developed to developing countries. Colombia and the Netherlands, backed by 80 countries, announced plans to create a Roadmap for the Elimination of Fossil Fuels, with an International Conference on Just Transition set for Colombia in 2026. Such initiatives, though outside the formal UN process, signal that some countries are willing to move faster than the slowest common denominator.
China’s presence at COP30 was notably assertive. As the world’s largest emitter and a leader in green technology, China filled part of the vacuum left by the US. The Chinese delegation, led by climate envoy Liu Zhenmin, emphasized multilateralism while maintaining that developed countries must bear historical responsibility for emissions. China’s narrative stressed energy sovereignty and the need for a realistic approach that balances fossil-fuel phase-out with economic development. The country’s dominance in renewable energy technology—controlling much of the global supply chain for solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles—underscored its growing influence. Yet, as Internationale Politik Quarterly observed, China’s climate leadership is paradoxical: while investing heavily in green tech, it continues to build new coal plants and its climate finance to developing countries often comes as loans, raising concerns about debt sustainability.
Parallel to the official talks, civil society was in full motion. Symbolic mobilizations like the Barqueata dos Povos—a flotilla of hundreds of boats defending the Amazon—and the Climate March drew thousands to the streets and waterways of Belém. The People’s Summit at the Federal University of Pará brought together 70,000 participants, including scientists, farmers, indigenous peoples, and climate justice movements. They issued a joint statement demanding climate justice, debt swaps for climate action, and protection for those defending their land. Faith communities played a special role as well, organizing prayer vigils and ecumenical meetings to remind negotiators that caring for creation is both a spiritual and a practical imperative.
As Evangelical Focus reported, a fire at the convention centre forced an evacuation of the negotiation area—a moment that many saw as a metaphor for a planet in crisis. The lush Amazonian landscape, with its heavy rains and searing sun, served as a constant reminder of what was at stake. “Participating in the COP is a way of responding to the Christian call to care for creation and our neighbours,” Morillo wrote, emphasizing the need for justice, compassion, and hope.
While COP30 did not deliver the breakthrough on emissions reductions that many had hoped for, it succeeded in preserving the multilateral framework of climate policy. The summit’s outcomes reflect a world where climate leadership is increasingly fragmented. The EU and vulnerable countries remain normative leaders, championing the Paris goals and a just transition. Technological and financial leadership, however, is shifting eastward to China, while moral leadership is often embodied by small island states and countries from Africa and Latin America. These groups warn that without bolder action, the world is on track for a 2.3–2.8°C temperature rise—well above the Paris target.
As the dust settles in Belém, the key question for the coming decade is whether this fragmented system can evolve into one of competitive cooperation. Only through genuine collaboration—across the COP process, the G20, regional alliances, and development finance institutions—will the world have a fighting chance to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals. The Amazon’s call for justice, equity, and urgent action still echoes, reminding all that the climate crisis is as much about people and values as it is about policies and numbers.
