In early December 2025, the world’s attention turned to Belém, a humid city deep within Brazil’s Amazon, as it hosted the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30). For the first time, the Amazon rainforest itself played host to the annual summit, and the symbolism was impossible to miss. The conference brought together representatives from 195 countries, thousands of Indigenous people, and a vibrant civil society, all determined to shape the future of global climate action. Yet, beneath the surface of celebration and ambition, the gathering revealed the persistent struggles of international cooperation, the shifting sands of global power, and the growing importance of those most affected by climate change.
COP30’s location in Belém was historic on two counts: it marked the Amazon’s debut as a climate summit stage, and it put forests, Indigenous peoples, and civil society at the center of the negotiations. The event culminated in the unanimous adoption of 29 decisions, a feat in itself given the sheer diversity of interests and priorities at play. According to Fair Observer, this outcome was achieved through a Brazilian diplomatic maneuver known as the “Mutirão”—a joint decision strategy designed to untangle complex issues and deliver a comprehensive package covering finance, adaptation, just transition, trade, gender, and technology.
Among the financial measures agreed upon, $135 million was allocated to the Adaptation Fund, and another $300 million was earmarked to help the health sector adapt to climate impacts. But these numbers, while headline-grabbing, are dwarfed by the scale of the challenge. The adaptation finance gap is currently estimated at $340 billion and is projected to balloon to $1.35 trillion by 2035. The conference’s task-force proposal called for tripling adaptation financing by 2035 compared to 2025, but, as Fair Observer points out, without a clearly defined base value or binding targets, the ambition remains largely rhetorical.
“The recognition that historical goals have not been met gained space in the final text, but without new and effective structures that guarantee the flow of resources where they are most urgent,” Fair Observer reported. The absence of clear accountability mechanisms for mobilizing the trillions needed for clean infrastructure remains a sticking point, echoing the longstanding challenge of translating political will into measurable action.
One of the most notable absences at COP30 was that of the United States. As The Polycrisis and Foreign Policy highlighted, the conference unfolded against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s second withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement. Not only did this leave the US delegation absent from the negotiating table, but it also cast a long shadow over the proceedings. Trump’s administration actively threatened sanctions against countries nearing a deal to limit global shipping pollution, effectively derailing the agreement and providing political cover for other nations hesitant to commit to ambitious climate action.
California Governor Gavin Newsom’s defiant appearance in Belém was a rare US presence, but it couldn’t compensate for the absence of the world’s largest historical emitter. The lack of US leadership shifted the dynamics, opening space for other actors—most notably Brazil, the European Union, and China—to shape the agenda. The European Union played a pragmatic role, supporting the joint decision package but insisting on balanced measures, especially regarding the energy transition. This approach helped secure approval of the package but also limited its financial ambition, particularly on binding commitments.
Meanwhile, a bloc of fossil-fuel-producing countries—including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, China, India, Russia, and Japan—successfully blocked the inclusion of a “roadmap” to move away from fossil fuels in the final text. Their objections ranged from concerns about timing and energy security to fears of economic disruption. As Fair Observer explained, “For many of these countries, formal commitments to abandon fossil fuels would entail high political and economic costs, requiring guarantees of finance, technology transfer and just treatment for workers and communities.”
Despite these obstacles, Brazil’s diplomatic leadership shone through. The presidency proposed the creation of an international just-transition mechanism, with a draft expected by June 2026 and contributions open until March 15, 2026. This mechanism aims to organize finance, technical cooperation, and capacity building—critical for countries and communities facing the brunt of the transition. During COP30, a remarkable 122 countries presented new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and the concept of a just transition rose to institutional priority.
Yet, Brazil’s own policies reflected the contradictions inherent in the global climate struggle. While promoting renewables on the international stage, the government simultaneously authorized oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon and renewed contracts for gas and coal plants through 2040. These internal tensions threaten the credibility and coherence of Brazil’s climate leadership, a fact not lost on observers or activists.
With the consensus-based UN process unable to deliver a fossil-fuel phaseout roadmap, a new coalition emerged. Colombia and the Netherlands announced they would host the world’s first international conference on “Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels” in April 2026. This initiative, backed by more than 80 countries, represents a promising alternative to the slow grind of unanimous decision-making. By creating a dedicated forum, the coalition hopes to advance operational consensus, secure transition finance, and design protections for workers and communities—steps essential for a fair and effective energy transition.
Civil society and Indigenous peoples made their presence felt as never before. More than 3,000 Indigenous participants engaged in and around the negotiations, defending territorial rights and advocating for climate justice. An estimated 70,000 people marched through Belém, demanding urgent action. The launch of the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF), which raised nearly $7 billion for forest protection, was both celebrated and critiqued—some lauded its ambition, while others questioned its reliance on private funds and the adequacy of its governance.
The summit was not without its logistical challenges. Delegates endured the Amazon’s punishing heat and humidity, and a small fire briefly disrupted proceedings, sending a handful to the hospital but causing no major harm. These hiccups, while minor, underscored the reality of holding a global event in a region on the frontlines of climate change.
Looking ahead, the stage is set for COP31 in Turkey, with Australia chairing negotiations. Key issues include ensuring robust civil society participation, halting new coal projects, setting concrete adaptation finance targets, and operationalizing the just-transition mechanism. The Pre-COP meeting in the Pacific, tailored to the existential concerns of island states threatened by sea-level rise, and the selection of an effective negotiation president will be crucial for meaningful progress.
COP30 in Belém may not have delivered the sweeping breakthroughs some had hoped for, but it marked a turning point in the global climate conversation. By elevating the Amazon, centering Indigenous voices, and embracing coalitions of action, the summit signaled a shift toward a more inclusive and pragmatic approach. The road ahead remains fraught with geopolitical tensions and financial shortfalls, but the determination of civil society and a growing coalition of countries suggest that the world’s climate ambitions are far from extinguished.
