Almost similar to the 29 earlier COP (Conference of the Parties) that were organized in different venues around the world each year, COP 30 at Belem in Brazil also started with high expectations and hopes about finding solutions to the global climate crisis and ended as a damp squib.
As a number of countries have different backgrounds, economic status, priorities, and compulsions, views expressed during the deliberations often highlight sharp differences in strategies to overcome the climate crisis. This is so despite the fact that every country is committed to managing climate challenges in the best manner possible.
COP in earlier years has struggled to arrive at a resolution that would reflect the views of each country to the extent possible, and they often end up as a compromise resolution. Such compromise resolutions do not reflect the ideal solution, keeping ground realities in view, and they take the battle against climate change nowhere. This is what happened in COP 30 as well.
The grim nature of the global climate issue is well reflected by the steady increase in global temperature. The rising temperature trend continues unabated, with the 2023–2025 three-year period projected to be the first time the average exceeds 1.5 degrees Celsius. The adverse impact of rising global temperature is already evident, with seasonal changes, floods, and droughts occurring in different countries unexpectedly, sea levels rising, and ice melting. Both Arctic and Antarctic ice are melting due to climate change, primarily driven by warming air and ocean temperatures. In the Arctic, this warming is amplified, causing a faster rate of ice loss than in Antarctica, though both ice sheets are losing mass overall. This melting leads to global sea-level rise and disrupts weather patterns worldwide.
There is no difference of view among the countries participating in COP and among technologists that the change in global temperature is caused by the unchecked emission of noxious gases such as carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. Such emissions occur due to the use of fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil, and natural gas. Obviously, the primary requirement to stop the emission of these global warming gases is to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
During the much-publicized COP in Paris and Glasgow, a number of countries including the USA and China promised that they would completely eliminate the emission of noxious gases by a targeted timeline. While China said it would become emission-free by 2050, India announced that it would become emission-free by 2070. However, claims on emission-free timelines by such countries now appear far-fetched, as the steps initiated to achieve this status are minimal or far below what is required.
While coal as an energy source is considered one of the major “culprits” causing the climate crisis, China, India, Australia, South Africa, and Indonesia continue to open new coal mines and are targeting increased production and use of coal. Global coal production has reached an all-time high in recent years, driven by production increases by major producers like China, India, and Indonesia, which boosted overall output in 2024 to a record 9.15 billion tonnes. Such a trend is likely to continue.
Production of crude oil, the use of which as an energy source is a major contributor to emissions, by crude-oil-rich countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Venezuela, Nigeria, and the USA is steadily increasing and being exported worldwide. Global crude oil production is projected to increase in 2025, with a 3.1 million barrel-per-day rise expected due to contributions from both OPEC+ and non-OPEC+ nations.
Methane is another deadly global warming gas. Methane emissions originate from both natural and human sources, with the largest human-caused sources being agriculture, especially from livestock and rice cultivation. Production and transport of fossil fuels such as crude oil, natural gas, and coal, as well as waste landfills, also cause large-scale methane emissions. Global methane emissions are currently still rising, and the world is far from meeting the goal of a 30% reduction in methane emissions from 2020 levels by 2030.
With global emissions continuing, and producing countries not reducing fossil fuel production while consuming countries do not reduce consumption, any discussion on tackling climate change in COP is bound to take place in a vacuum.
It appears that finding alternative eco-friendly fuel sources at affordable cost and adequate levels will not happen anytime soon. While power from wind and solar as renewable energy is increasingly focused on, given limiting factors such as seasonal variations, renewable energy sources can never fully substitute fossil fuels. Hydrogen energy is another targeted research and development program, but the technology is still evolving, and production costs to generate energy from hydrogen are unlikely to match those of fossil fuels anytime soon. One has to keep fingers crossed as to how far the use of hydrogen can reduce global emissions, given the production and transportation cost issues.
While COP discusses global warming issues, conflicts and wars frequently occur between participating countries, with drones and missiles causing fire hazards and huge emissions of noxious gases. It is surprising that this aspect was not discussed at COP 30.
The focus of views expressed at COP 30 is that there should be no uniform regulation for emission reduction by all countries. Developing countries opposed the suggestion to commit countries to a timeline for eliminating fossil fuel use. Developed countries insisted that specifying such a path is critical to keep the planet from overheating beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius. There is also disagreement among developed countries regarding the quantum of financial assistance they should provide to developing countries to combat climate change.
The net result is that there is no clear agreement among countries about facing the climate challenge, and it appears that every country will manage its economy and development plans independently, irrespective of the impact on the global climate. Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that COP 30 ended as a lackluster exercise.
