🔗 Share this article

As dawn illuminated the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, negotiators remained confined in a enclosed conference room, oblivious whether it was day or night. Having spent 12 hours in strained discussions, with scores ministers representing multiple blocs of countries including the poorest nations to the richest economies.

Tempers were short, the air thick as sweaty delegates faced up to the grim reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The 30th UN climate conference hovered near the brink of total collapse.

The central impasse: Fossil fuels

Research has demonstrated for well over a century, the CO2 emissions produced by consuming fossil fuels is heating up our planet to dangerous levels.

However, during nearly three decades of yearly 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 "shift from fossil fuels". Representatives from the Gulf states, Russia, and several other countries were adamant this would not be repeated.

Mounting support for change

Meanwhile, a increasing coalition of countries were similarly resolved that progress on this issue was vitally needed. They had formulated a initiative that was gathering increasing support and made it clear they were ready to dig in.

Emerging economies strongly sought to make progress on securing funding support to help them manage the already disastrous impacts of environmental crises.

Critical moment

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

The critical development occurred through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Near 6am, principal delegates left the main group to hold a confidential discussion with the chief Saudi negotiator. They encouraged wording that would subtly reference the global commitment to "shift from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Surprising consensus

As opposed to explicitly referencing fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the previous commitment". After consideration, the Saudi delegation unexpectedly accepted the wording.

Delegates expressed relief. Applause rang out. The agreement was completed.

With what became known as the "Amazon accord", the world took a modest advance towards the phaseout of fossil fuels – a faltering, inadequate step that will minimally impact the climate's ongoing trajectory towards crisis. But nevertheless a important shift from complete stagnation.

Major components of the agreement

• Complementing the indirect reference in the formal agreement, countries will begin work a roadmap to gradually eliminate fossil fuels
• This will be largely a optional undertaking led by Brazil that will deliver findings next year
• Addressing the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to remain below the 1.5C limit was likewise deferred to next year
• Developing countries achieved a tripling to $120bn of yearly funding to help them adapt to the impacts of climate disasters
• This funding will not be fully available until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in polluting businesses shift to the sustainable sector

Mixed reactions

With global conditions hovers near the brink of climate "irreversible changes" that could destroy ecosystems and throw whole regions into crisis, the agreement was not the "giant leap" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some modest progress in the proper course, but considering the severity of the climate crisis, it has failed to rise to the occasion," warned one climate expert.

This flawed deal might have been all that was possible, given the geopolitical headwinds – including a US president who shunned the talks and remains aligned with oil and coal, the growing influence of conservative movements, continuing wars in various areas, extreme measures of inequality, and global economic volatility.

"Major polluters – the oil and gas companies – were ultimately in the focus at the climate summit," comments one environmental advocate. "We have crossed a threshold on that. The opportunity is available. Now we must convert it to a actual pathway to a safer world."

Deep fissures revealed

Even as nations were able to celebrate the gavelling through of the deal, Cop30 also highlighted major disagreements in the sole international mechanism for confronting the climate crisis.

"UN negotiations are consensus-based, and in a period of international tensions, consensus is progressively challenging to reach," stated one international diplomat. "We should not suggest that this summit has provided all that is needed. The difference between where we are and what evidence necessitates remains dangerously wide."

If the world is to prevent the most severe impacts of climate breakdown, the UN climate talks alone will fall far short.