🔗 Share this article

While dawn crept over the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, negotiators remained confined in a airless conference room, uncertain whether it was day or night. For more than 12 hours in strained discussions, with dozens ministers representing 17 groups of countries ranging from the least developed nations to the wealthiest economies.

Patience wore thin, the air thick as weary delegates faced up to the harsh reality: they would not reach a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The international climate negotiations faced the brink of total collapse.

The major obstacle: Fossil fuels

Scientific evidence has shown for more than a century, the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels is heating up our planet to alarming levels.

However, during more than three decades of yearly climate meetings, the urgent need to stop fossil fuel use has been addressed only once – in a agreement made two years ago at previous UN climate talks to "shift from fossil fuels". Representatives from the Gulf states, Russia, and a few other countries were adamant this would not happen again.

Increasing pressure for change

Meanwhile, a increasing coalition of countries were similarly resolved that progress on this issue was urgently necessary. They had created a initiative that was earning expanding support and made it apparent they were willing to dig in.

Emerging economies urgently needed to advance on securing economic resources to help them manage the growing impacts of environmental crises.

Turning point

By the early hours of Saturday, some delegates were prepared to walk out and trigger failure. "The situation was precarious for us," commented one energy minister. "I was prepared to walk away."

The pivotal moment came through talks with Saudi Arabia. Shortly after 6am, senior representatives split from the main group to hold a confidential discussion with the head Saudi negotiator. They encouraged language that would indirectly acknowledge the global commitment to "shift from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Unexpected agreement

Rather than explicitly mentioning fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the UAE consensus". Upon deliberation, the Saudi delegation unexpectedly approved the wording.

The room showed visible relief. Applause rang out. The deal was done.

With what became known as the "Brazil agreement", the world took an incremental move towards the phaseout of fossil fuels – a uncertain, inadequate step that will minimally impact the climate's steady march towards crisis. But nevertheless a notable change from total inaction.

Important aspects of the agreement

• Complementing the subtle acknowledgment in the legally agreed text, countries will start developing a roadmap to gradually eliminate fossil fuels
• This will be primarily a non-binding program led by Brazil that will deliver findings next year
• Addressing the essential decreases in greenhouse gas emissions to stay within the 1.5C limit was similarly postponed to next year
• Developing countries achieved a tripling to $120bn of regular financial support to help them manage the impacts of extreme weather
• This amount will not be delivered in full until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in polluting businesses shift to the clean economy

Mixed reactions

As the world teeters on the brink of climate "irreversible changes" that could devastate environments and force whole regions into disorder, the agreement was far from the "major breakthrough" needed.

"The summit provided some small advances in the correct path, but given the severity of the climate crisis, it has not met the occasion," cautioned one climate expert.

This flawed deal might have been the best attainable, given the political challenges – including a US president who avoided the talks and remains committed to oil and coal, the increasing presence of conservative movements, continuing wars in different locations, unacceptable degrees of inequality, and global economic instability.

"The climate arsonists – the fossil fuel giants – were ultimately in the crosshairs at Cop30," says one climate activist. "There is no turning back on that. The platform is accessible. Now we must turn it into a genuine solution to a more secure planet."

Deep fissures revealed

While nations were able to applaud the official adoption of the deal, Cop30 also exposed significant divisions in the sole international mechanism for confronting the climate crisis.

"Climate conferences are unanimity-required, and in a time of global disagreements, agreement is progressively challenging to reach," commented one global leader. "We should not suggest that these talks has provided all that is needed. The gap between our current position and what science demands remains concerningly substantial."

If the world is to prevent the most severe impacts of climate crisis, the international negotiations alone will prove insufficient.