🔗 Share this article

While dawn was breaking the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, representatives remained confined in a airless conference room, uncertain whether it was day or night. For more than 12 hours in difficult discussions, with numerous ministers representing multiple blocs of countries from the most vulnerable nations to the wealthiest economies.

Frustration mounted, the air stifling as sweaty delegates faced up to the sobering reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The international climate negotiations hovered near the brink of total collapse.

The major obstacle: Fossil fuels

As science has told us for well over a century, the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels is increasing temperatures on our planet to dangerous levels.

However, during nearly three decades of annual climate meetings, the essential necessity to cease fossil fuel use has been addressed only once – in a resolution made two years ago at Cop28 to "transition away from fossil fuels". Officials from the Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and a few other countries were determined this would not happen again.

Mounting support for change

At the same time, a increasing coalition of countries were equally determined that progress on this issue was urgently necessary. They had developed a proposal that was gathering growing support and made it clear they were prepared to dig in.

Developing countries urgently needed to advance on securing funding support to help them cope with the increasingly severe impacts of extreme weather.

Critical moment

In the pre-dawn period of Saturday, some delegates were prepared to withdraw and force a collapse. "The situation was precarious for us," commented one government representative. "I was prepared to walk away."

The breakthrough happened through negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Shortly after 6am, principal delegates separated from the main group to hold a confidential discussion with the head Saudi negotiator. They pressed wording that would obliquely recognise the global commitment to "move beyond fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Surprising consensus

Rather than explicitly referencing fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the Dubai agreement". After consideration, the Saudi delegation unexpectedly approved the wording.

Participants collapsed into relief. Celebrations began. The deal was finalized.

With what became known as the "Belém political package", the world took an incremental move towards the systematic reduction of fossil fuels – a faltering, inadequate step that will minimally impact the climate's steady march towards catastrophe. But nevertheless a important shift from total inaction.

Major components of the agreement

• In addition to the subtle acknowledgment in the formal agreement, countries will start developing a framework to gradually eliminate fossil fuels
• This will be mostly a non-binding program led by Brazil that will report back next year
• Addressing the required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to not exceed the 1.5C limit was also put off to next year
• Developing countries achieved a significant expansion to $120bn of annual finance to help them cope with the impacts of climate disasters
• This amount will not be completely provided until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "fair adjustment program" to help people working in fossil fuel sectors transition to the clean economy

Varied responses

With global conditions hovers near the brink of climate "critical thresholds" that could destroy ecosystems and throw whole regions into disorder, the agreement was far from the "giant leap" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some baby steps in the proper course, but considering the magnitude of the climate crisis, it has fallen short of the occasion," stated one policy director.

This flawed deal might have been all that was possible, given the geopolitical headwinds – including a US president who avoided the talks and remains aligned with oil and coal, the rising tide of nationalist politics, persistent fighting in multiple regions, intolerable levels of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

"The climate arsonists – the oil and gas companies – were finally in the spotlight at the climate summit," comments one environmental advocate. "There is no turning back on that. The political space is available. Now we must turn it into a genuine solution to a safer world."

Major disagreements revealed

Although nations were able to applaud the formal approval of the deal, Cop30 also revealed significant divisions in the sole international mechanism for tackling the climate crisis.

"Climate conferences are agreement-dependent, and in a time of geopolitical divides, agreement is ever harder to reach," observed one international diplomat. "It would be dishonest to claim that Cop30 has delivered everything that is needed. The gap between our current position and what research requires remains dangerously wide."

Should the world is to prevent the gravest consequences of climate collapse, the UN climate talks alone will prove insufficient.