As the dust settles in Belém, Brazil, following the conclusion of COP30 in December 2025, the world is left to reflect on a climate summit marked by both dramatic moments and deep divisions. The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) was anything but ordinary. Delegates battled through fire at the venue, torrential daily rainstorms, and relentless heat—an apt metaphor for the heated debates and high stakes negotiations that unfolded inside.
According to Climate Action Network International, the summit took place against a backdrop of increasingly fraught geopolitics, with the familiar pattern emerging: countries most responsible for the climate crisis—often labeled as the Global North—deflected blame toward the Global South, while simultaneously stalling progress on issues critical for vulnerable communities. Despite lofty expectations, COP30 did not deliver all that was hoped for. Yet, amid disappointment, there were steps forward that could not be ignored.
One of the summit’s most significant outcomes was the establishment of the Just Transition Mechanism, also known as the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM). This mechanism, as described by Climate Action Network International, is designed to ensure that workers and frontline communities are not left behind in the global shift toward sustainability. The agreement affirms their rights, marking what many see as some of the strongest recognition of social and economic rights in the history of United Nations climate negotiations. "This was how the big win at COP30 was delivered: through people power," the network noted, emphasizing the role of collective action and grassroots pressure in driving change.
But the celebration was tempered by criticism over what was left unsaid and undone. As Dialogue Earth reported, the gathering of world leaders, scientists, activists, and industry representatives sidestepped the elephant in the room: fossil fuels. While COP30 agreed on a new climate finance goal—pledging to triple adaptation funding—negotiators avoided committing to a phase-out of fossil fuels, the primary driver of global warming. This omission echoed through the halls of the summit and in the voices of experts who believe the health and wellbeing of millions depend on bolder action.
Jeni Miller, executive director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance, underscored the urgency: "The health impacts of heatwaves and drought are significant and growing. In 2023, they pushed over 100 million more people into food insecurity compared to 1981-2010. While in 2024, over 600 billion potential labour hours were lost due to heat, with follow-on impacts for family health and wellbeing." Miller lamented that, despite increased discussion of heat and health at COP30, the issue barely penetrated formal negotiations. The launch of the Belém Health Action Plan and high-profile events at the Health Pavilion drew attention to the risks, but the translation of these concerns into concrete policy was lacking.
Stella Hartinger, director of Lancet Countdown Latin America, shared similar concerns. "Human health will continue to deteriorate in the future due to the compounding effects of climate change," Hartinger warned, citing a report that surveyed 17 countries and used 41 indicators to measure impacts. She argued that health, particularly in the Global South, remains insufficiently prioritized in climate discussions. "Although health has been gaining ground in climate discourse, in practice, it is still not prioritised as the magnitude of the crisis demands – especially in the Global South." Hartinger called for explicit integration of health into climate action, backed by adequate funding and mechanisms that reflect local realities.
The city-level response provided a glimmer of hope. Mark Watts, executive director of C40 Cities, highlighted how mayors from around the globe converged at both COP30 and the preceding C40 World Mayors Summit in Rio to launch the Cool Cities Accelerator. Cities like Freetown, Phoenix, and Santiago unveiled ambitious heat action agendas for 2026, ranging from cold-food storage to emergency-response systems and "pocket forests." The Beat the Heat/Global Mutirão Against Extreme Heat campaign, launched at COP30 with 185 cities already signed up, further cemented the focus on urban resilience. Watts praised the trebling of climate adaptation finance but expressed disappointment over the relatively weak language on resilience in COP30’s final text and the lack of formal adaptation partnerships between local and national governments.
Yet, for all the progress, frustration simmered beneath the surface. As Eric Kuhn wrote in The Middletown Press, the COP process itself has come under fire for failing to produce meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past 30 years of COP meetings, global emissions have only declined once—during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kuhn likened the situation to a hypothetical meeting of lung specialists, repeatedly failing to acknowledge the link between smoking and cancer while tobacco industry representatives fill the room. "Our greenhouse gases are cooking the earth and we need to stop: if you won’t say that, you’re in denial," Kuhn argued, suggesting that the annual global talks have become a cover for inaction.
His critique resonated with the broader sense of gridlock that plagues international climate diplomacy. Hundreds of representatives attended COP30 to protect fossil fuel interests, and the summit ended without a clear statement on reducing greenhouse gases. The author even proposed abolishing the COP meetings altogether, arguing that they give the illusion of progress while enabling business as usual. Instead, Kuhn called for action at every level—from individuals to towns, companies, and states—because waiting for unanimous global agreement is a recipe for paralysis.
Others, however, defended the necessity of global cooperation. Pamela Templer, a Boston University professor who attended COP30, reflected on the importance of international forums: "We’ve got to have international cooperation to make a dent in climate change. So, the bigger question is: ‘Where would we be without this?’ I think the alternative would be much worse." Templer noted the increased participation of Indigenous communities and city leaders as a source of energy and hope, even as she acknowledged the slow pace and limited ambition of the negotiations. She argued that framing climate change as a health issue could help build broader consensus and spur action: "If we can convey to negotiators what we already know about the negative impacts of climate change on human health, I think that would bring even more countries into agreement on the need for strong action to curb emissions."
As the world digests the outcomes of COP30, the path forward is anything but clear. The summit delivered important wins for justice and adaptation, yet failed to confront fossil fuels head-on or deliver the sweeping commitments many had hoped for. The debate over the effectiveness of the COP process itself is likely to intensify, with some calling for its overhaul and others insisting it remains indispensable. What is certain is that the urgency of the climate crisis is growing—and the need for action, at every level, has never been greater.
