🔗 Share this article

As dawn illuminated the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, representatives remained trapped in a airless conference room, oblivious whether it was day or night. For more than 12 hours in strained discussions, with numerous ministers representing various coalitions of countries from the poorest nations to the richest economies.

Frustration mounted, the air heavy as exhausted delegates acknowledged the sobering reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The international climate negotiations hovered near the brink of complete breakdown.

The central impasse: Fossil fuels

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

Nevertheless, during over three decades of annual climate meetings, the urgent need to cease fossil fuel use has been addressed only once – in a agreement made two years ago at previous UN climate talks to "shift from fossil fuels". Delegates from the Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and multiple other countries were adamant this would not occur another time.

Increasing pressure for change

Simultaneously, a expanding group of countries were equally determined that progress on this issue was crucially important. They had created a plan that was gathering growing support and made it clear they were ready to dig in.

Developing countries urgently needed to make progress on securing funding support to help them address the increasingly severe impacts of environmental crises.

Critical moment

During the night of Saturday, some delegates were willing to withdraw and force a collapse. "The situation was precarious for us," commented one national delegate. "I considered to walk away."

The pivotal moment occurred through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Near 6am, principal delegates separated from the main group to hold a confidential discussion with the lead Saudi negotiator. They encouraged wording that would obliquely recognise the global commitment to "transition away from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Unanticipated resolution

Rather than explicitly namechecking fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the previous commitment". Upon deliberation, the Saudi delegation unexpectedly agreed to the wording.

Delegates collapsed into relief. Applause rang out. The settlement was completed.

With what became known as the "Amazon accord", the world took another small step towards the gradual elimination of fossil fuels – a faltering, insufficient step that will minimally impact the climate's ongoing trajectory towards disaster. But nevertheless a significant departure from total inaction.

Important aspects of the agreement

• Complementing the oblique commitment in the official document, countries will begin work a plan to systematically reduce fossil fuels
• This will be primarily a voluntary initiative led by Brazil that will provide updates 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 secured a significant expansion to $120bn of regular financial support to help them cope with the impacts of climate disasters
• This amount will not be delivered in full until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in high-carbon industries move toward the clean economy

Mixed reactions

With global conditions approaches the brink of climate "irreversible changes" that could eliminate habitats and force whole regions into chaos, the agreement was far from the "major breakthrough" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some baby steps in the correct path, but considering the magnitude of the climate crisis, it has not met the occasion," warned one environmental analyst.

This limited deal might have been the best attainable, given the political challenges – including a US president who ignored the talks and remains wedded to oil and coal, the increasing presence of conservative movements, ongoing conflicts in various areas, extreme measures of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

"The climate arsonists – the oil and gas companies – were at last in the crosshairs at these negotiations," says one climate activist. "This represents progress on that. The platform is accessible. Now we must convert it to a real fire escape to a safer world."

Significant divisions revealed

While nations were able to welcome the formal approval of the deal, Cop30 also revealed major disagreements in the primary worldwide framework for tackling the climate crisis.

"Climate conferences are unanimity-required, and in a time of geopolitical divides, unanimity is increasingly difficult to reach," observed one global leader. "It would be dishonest to claim that these talks has achieved complete success that is needed. The disparity between present circumstances and what research requires remains dangerously wide."

Should the world is to avert the gravest consequences of climate crisis, the international negotiations alone will fall far short.