🔗 Share this article

As dawn crept over the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, representatives remained trapped in a enclosed conference room, oblivious whether it was day or night. Having spent 12 hours in tense discussions, with dozens ministers representing 17 groups of countries from the least developed nations to the most developed economies.

Frustration mounted, the air thick as sweaty delegates acknowledged the grim reality: they would not reach a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The latest global climate summit teetered on the brink of total collapse.

The central impasse: Fossil fuels

Scientific evidence has shown for more than a century, the CO2 emissions produced by burning fossil fuels is increasing temperatures on our planet to dangerous levels.

However, during nearly three decades of annual climate meetings, the urgent need to cease fossil fuel use has been referenced only once – in a decision made two years ago at previous UN climate talks to "shift from fossil fuels". Representatives from the Gulf states, Russia, and several other countries were adamant this would not be repeated.

Increasing pressure for change

Simultaneously, a increasing coalition of countries were similarly resolved that advancement on this issue was crucially important. They had created a proposal that was attracting expanding support and made it apparent they were willing to hold firm.

Developing countries desperately wanted to make progress on securing economic resources to help them manage the already disastrous impacts of climate disasters.

Critical moment

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

The breakthrough occurred through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Shortly after 6am, senior representatives separated from the main group to hold a closed-door meeting with the lead Saudi negotiator. They encouraged language that would subtly reference the global commitment to "shift from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Surprising consensus

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

Delegates collapsed into relief. Cheers erupted. The deal was completed.

With what became known as the "Amazon accord", the world took a modest advance towards the systematic reduction of fossil fuels – a uncertain, inadequate step that will scarcely affect the climate's ongoing trajectory towards disaster. But nevertheless a important shift from absolute paralysis.

Major components of the agreement

• In addition to the oblique commitment in the formal agreement, countries will begin work a framework to phase out fossil fuels
• This will be mostly a non-binding program led by Brazil that will deliver findings next year
• Addressing the required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to remain below the 1.5C limit was likewise deferred to next year
• Developing countries achieved a threefold increase to $120bn of yearly funding to help them manage the impacts of climate disasters
• This sum will not be delivered in full until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in fossil fuel sectors transition to the clean economy

Mixed reactions

As the world hovers near the brink of climate "critical thresholds" that could destroy ecosystems and throw whole regions into chaos, the agreement was far from the "major breakthrough" needed.

"Cop30 gave us some baby steps in the correct path, but considering the severity of the climate crisis, it has failed to rise to the occasion," stated one climate expert.

This limited deal might have been the maximum achievable, 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 various areas, extreme measures of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

"Fossil fuel corporations – the energy conglomerates – were ultimately in the focus at these negotiations," says one policy convener. "There is no turning back on that. The political space is available. Now we must convert it to a real fire escape to a more secure planet."

Major disagreements revealed

Although nations were able to applaud the formal approval of the deal, Cop30 also highlighted significant divisions in the primary worldwide framework for addressing the climate crisis.

"UN negotiations are unanimity-required, and in a time of international tensions, unanimity is increasingly difficult to reach," commented one international diplomat. "I cannot pretend that Cop30 has achieved complete success that is needed. The disparity between present circumstances and what science demands remains concerningly substantial."

If the world is to avoid the worst ravages of climate collapse, the international negotiations alone will prove insufficient.