🔗 Share this article

When dawn was breaking the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, representatives remained confined in a airless conference room, oblivious whether it was day or night. They had been 12 hours in tense discussions, with scores ministers representing 17 groups of countries including the most vulnerable nations to the richest economies.

Tempers were short, the air heavy as sweaty delegates acknowledged the sobering reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The 30th UN climate conference teetered on the brink of abject failure.

The central impasse: Fossil fuels

As science has told us for more than a century, the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels is increasing temperatures on our planet to dangerous levels.

However, during over three decades of annual climate meetings, the crucial requirement to halt fossil fuel use has been mentioned only once – in a agreement made two years ago at Cop28 to "transition away from fossil fuels". Delegates from the Arab Group, Russia, and several other countries were determined this would not happen again.

Increasing pressure for change

Meanwhile, a increasing coalition of countries were similarly resolved that progress on this issue was crucially important. They had formulated a initiative that was attracting growing support and made it evident they were prepared to stand their ground.

Emerging economies urgently needed to make progress on securing financial assistance to help them manage the growing impacts of environmental crises.

Breaking point

By the early hours of Saturday, some delegates were prepared to withdraw and force a collapse. "We were close for us," commented one national delegate. "I was ready to walk away."

The critical development occurred through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Around 6am, senior representatives separated from the main group to hold a confidential discussion with the head Saudi negotiator. They pressed text that would subtly reference the global commitment to "shift from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Unanticipated resolution

Rather than explicitly referencing fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the Dubai agreement". Upon deliberation, the Saudi delegation unforeseeably approved the wording.

Delegates showed visible relief. Cheers erupted. The deal was completed.

With what became known as the "Belém political package", the world took an incremental move towards the phaseout of fossil fuels – a faltering, limited step that will barely interrupt the climate's steady march towards disaster. But nevertheless a significant departure from total inaction.

Important aspects of the agreement

• In addition to the indirect reference in the legally agreed text, countries will commence creating a plan to gradually eliminate fossil fuels
• This will be mostly a non-binding program led by Brazil that will report back next year
• Addressing the essential decreases in greenhouse gas emissions to remain below the 1.5C limit was similarly postponed to next year
• Developing countries obtained a significant expansion to $120bn of annual finance to help them manage the impacts of extreme weather
• This sum will not be delivered in full until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "equitable change process" to help people working in polluting businesses shift to the clean economy

Differing opinions

While our planet hovers near the brink of climate "irreversible changes" that could eliminate habitats and plunge whole regions into disorder, the agreement was not the "major breakthrough" needed.

"The summit provided some modest progress in the correct path, but considering the scale of the climate crisis, it has not met the occasion," cautioned one climate expert.

This limited deal might have been the maximum achievable, given the international tensions – including a American leader who shunned the talks and remains aligned with oil and coal, the rising tide of conservative movements, persistent fighting in different locations, unacceptable degrees of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

"The climate arsonists – the fossil fuel giants – were finally in the crosshairs at Cop30," says one environmental advocate. "We have crossed a threshold on that. The platform is accessible. Now we must turn it into a genuine solution to a more secure planet."

Major disagreements revealed

Although nations were able to applaud the formal approval of the deal, Cop30 also revealed deep fissures in the sole international mechanism for confronting the climate crisis.

"International summits are consensus-based, and in a time of international tensions, agreement is progressively challenging to reach," commented one international diplomat. "I cannot pretend that these talks has provided all that is needed. The disparity between present circumstances and what evidence necessitates remains dangerously wide."

Should the world is to prevent the most severe impacts of climate crisis, the UN climate talks alone will not be nearly enough.