The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) wrapped up on December 13, 2025, in Belém, Brazil, leaving the global community with a patchwork of progress and disappointment. As delegates packed up their briefcases and the world’s press filed their final reports, experts and activists alike were left grappling with a fundamental question: did this summit mark a meaningful step forward in the fight against climate change, or was it a missed opportunity in the face of a mounting crisis?
According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), COP30 was intended as a pivotal moment—an opportunity for nations to present new and revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for the next decade, signaling a decisive leap in ambition. Yet, the reality fell short of expectations. Out of 195 countries, only 121 submitted new NDCs. That left 76 countries, responsible for more than a quarter (26%) of global emissions, without updated commitments. For the first time, parties at the summit openly acknowledged the likelihood that global temperatures will overshoot the critical 1.5°C threshold this century.
It’s a sobering admission, and one that, for many, was long overdue. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been ringing alarm bells for years. Their latest assessment, cited by The Express Tribune, warns of a substantial ‘emissions gap’ between current NDCs and what’s needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. "This would make it likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century (high confidence)," the IPCC stated in its 2023 Synthesis Report. Despite this, politicians at COP30 continued to invoke the mantra of “keeping 1.5 alive.”
“We need to press forward. We must keep 1.5 alive,” declared New Zealand’s representative, echoing a sentiment repeated by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. But critics argue these statements are increasingly disconnected from scientific reality. As The Express Tribune noted, such rhetoric can feel self-congratulatory—especially when set against the IPCC’s stark warnings and the slow pace of tangible progress.
On the ground, the impacts of climate change are already devastating. The IPCC’s report highlighted reduced food and water security, increased heat-related mortality, and catastrophic flooding—phenomena painfully familiar to nations like Pakistan. In 2025 alone, Pakistan suffered severe floods that killed at least 1,000 people and wiped out crops across Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. “Climate change has reduced food security and affected water security, hindering efforts to meet Sustainable Development Goals (high confidence),” the IPCC report states. The human cost is not abstract; it’s measured in lost lives, livelihoods, and homes.
Against this backdrop, many observers found COP30’s outcomes lacking. Negotiations stalled on crucial issues like phasing out fossil fuels and halting deforestation. Over 80 countries supported a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, but the final agreement made no binding reference to them. Instead, voluntary initiatives emerged: Colombia and the Netherlands announced plans to co-host the first international conference on the just transition away from fossil fuels in 2026, and Brazil pledged a voluntary roadmap on deforestation to be presented at COP31 in Turkey. While these efforts are not insignificant, their voluntary nature leaves room for skepticism.
On the positive side, COP30 did notch some concrete achievements. Adaptation finance is set to triple, with a new target of $120 billion per year—though experts caution this is still below what developing countries require. A set of 59 adaptation indicators was adopted, though compromises may limit their effectiveness. The Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) was launched to support a just transition, with unprecedented references to labor, human, and environmental rights. And for the first time, international trade negotiations formally included carbon trade measures such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), signaling a growing recognition of the role trade can play in climate action.
Still, the summit’s shortcomings were impossible to ignore. As WEF experts put it, “The Climate Action Agenda is not a nice-to-have on the side. It is mission-critical and a key part of the Paris Agreement.” Yet, the slow progress on operationalizing a transparent, high-integrity global carbon market and the lack of binding commitments on fossil fuels and deforestation left many with a sense of déjà vu.
Political leaders’ statements throughout the conference did little to dispel this frustration. Ed Miliband, representing the UK, acknowledged, “I am conscious of the further progress we need to make.” But such admissions, while honest, underscored a broader sense of inertia. As The Express Tribune pointed out, the leadership on climate change in the UK—and elsewhere—has often fallen short of the transformative action needed. The article drew a sharp contrast with historical moments of crisis, invoking Winston Churchill’s wartime mobilization as an example of the kind of leadership now required. “We likewise need a wartime approach to tackle the climate crisis,” the commentary urged.
Belgium’s Federal Minister of Climate Change added, “The transition is away and irreversible… the transition shouldn’t exacerbate the inequality.” While addressing inequality is vital, critics argue that focusing on longstanding social issues during an immediate existential crisis risks diluting the urgency of climate action. The analogy was drawn to World War II—would it have been the right moment to lecture Belgians on inequality as their country was invaded?
The IPCC report doesn’t mince words about the stakes: “Hazards and associated risks expected in the near term include an increase in heat-related human mortality and morbidity (high confidence), food-borne, water-borne, and vector-borne diseases (high confidence), and mental health challenges (very high confidence), flooding in coastal and other low-lying cities and regions (high confidence), biodiversity loss in land, freshwater and ocean ecosystems (medium to very high confidence, depending on ecosystem), and a decrease in food production in some regions (high confidence).” The compounding risks—pandemics, food insecurity, and conflict—are not distant threats but present realities for millions.
Barriers to adaptation remain formidable: limited resources, insufficient mobilization of finance, low climate literacy, lack of political commitment, and a low sense of urgency. These obstacles, the IPCC notes, mirror the very challenges that hampered COP30’s effectiveness. “Key barriers to adaptation are limited resources, lack of private sector and citizen engagement, insufficient mobilization of finance (including for research), low climate literacy, lack of political commitment, limited research and/or slow and low uptake of adaptation science, and low sense of urgency.”
As the dust settles on COP30, the world is left with a familiar mixture of hope and apprehension. There were gains—more money for adaptation, new mechanisms for a just transition, and the inclusion of trade in climate talks. Yet, the absence of binding agreements on the most pressing issues and the persistent gap between rhetoric and reality underscore the magnitude of the challenge ahead. The climate crisis, as the IPCC and real-world events in places like Pakistan make clear, is not waiting for political consensus. The question now is whether future conferences will rise to meet the urgency of the moment—or whether the world will continue to settle for incremental progress while the planet’s thermostat keeps ticking upward.
