COP30: A Reminder of the Scorching Realities of Inter-State Consensus

Source: Wikimedia Commons

The environment at its tipping point and failures at grounding any political action, will our environment ever be taken seriously?

On 13 October 2025, the Earth officially entered its cycle of irreversible climate change. Global warming has reached 1.4 °C, an event threatening inevitable destruction across our ecosystems. Warm-water coral reef ecosystems are virtually certain to be lost (over 99% probability), the Amazon rainforest is closer to dieback, seasons will be harsher, agricultural yields lower, and the lives of “hundreds of millions of people” are at risk. Such a pattern of tipping points is what scientists have established today as “uncharted territory”, a term that calls upon the urgent reimagination of today’s quotidian practices. In that respect, heads have turned to states and other political actors for immediate action.

This is where the COP summits come into play. The Conference of the Parties is a platform that facilitates inter-state cooperation on issues related to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The aim of such multilateral action is to “stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent [human] interference with the climate system” through political negotiation and agreements. As such, against a backdrop marked by recurring tipping points and significant environmental degradation, global populations have looked to the COPs for help in finally pushing state action. Yet, while having the COPs as a supreme decision-making body is the first step to addressing global warming, substantial political action remains absent. COP30 was a harsh reminder of this. Instead of promoting international cooperation, COP30 had added fuel to current geopolitical divides, setting possibilities of effective multilateralism ablaze, and leaving questions of our environment’s future unanswered. This came as a disappointment to many. What was meant to be a beacon of hope has simply reminded us of the scorching impossibilities of inter-state consensus.

Set under the smouldering sun of Belém, Brazil, COP30 was set out to reinforce multilateralism and inter-state cooperation on environmental crises. By fuelling cooperation, COP30 could achieve its main priority, that of implementation with a key focus on “delivering the outcomes of pledges made at previous COPs”, including, and most importantly, those of the ‘Global Stocktake’ at COP28 in Dubai, the first ever comprehensive evaluation of progress towards the Paris Agreement goals. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels is an issue at the very core of climate change. As such, if COP30 were to be a breakthrough in environmental advocacy, it would have to address the UAE Consensus made 2 years ago at COP28, where oil-producing nations had agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. Except this wasn’t the case. A negotiator from the Middle East outlined that there is no need to return to the resolution passed in COP28, “bringing it up at COP30 is trying to impinge on national sovereignty”. As a result, negotiations on transitioning away from fossil fuels were deadlocked for 12 hours, collective ambitions in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) fell short of what was needed, and oil-producing nations are still exempt from any binding solutions.

Adopting a more reactive agenda to today’s environmental crises doesn’t seem to be coming anytime soon, at least not on the inter-state front. Laurence Tubiana, engineer of the Paris Climate Agreement and chief executive of the European Climate Foundation claimed that “Every country has to imagine for itself what policies they want, what role they have to play, and what ambition do they have.”. While the concept of sovereignty is central in multilateral negotiations, placing it at the very core of environmental discussions is futile. Achieving consensus on how to address the environment cannot be done with consideration of all interests. As such, the consensus-based system of COP fails to address the actual needs of populations and ecosystems in a time of global crisis. This is not to say that the realities of consensus make cooperation on environmental issues impossible. Instead, the COPs’ decision-making structure is simply incompatible with the nature of today’s ecological crisis.

Instead of urgent and definitive change in state action, what did emerge from the Belém Package was a set of political commitments that attempted to push members towards greener agendas and greater consideration of third-generation rights. It outlines a commitment to “triple adaptation finance by 2035”, aiding developing nations to cope with the political and economic ramifications of environmental degradation. While this is important in building resilience to climate change, it does not address the root issue at hand. Adaptation needs to be balanced or even outweighed by mitigation, yet this isn’t the case today. COP30 needs to continue enhancing inter-state cooperation at the output level of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic pollutants.

   As a result of such shortfalls, solutions have been sought elsewhere than COP30. Brazilian President Lula da Silva has taken his roadmap initiative, encompassing proposals to transition away from fossil fuels and deforestation to the G20 Summit, in the hope of a phase-out from non-renewables. His initiative had eighty-two governments involved, which only accounts for 7% of fossil fuel production. As usual, major players involved in the extraction of fossil fuels have expressed reservations towards the proposal, establishing that cooperation on climate action is unfeasible, even outside of COP30.

In and out of the COP, climate action at the inter-state level has been substandard. However, Belém’s civil society tells a different story. Across the city, civil society has created spaces to demonstrate what true inclusion looks like. Supported by Global Witness, Cop do Povo – the grassroots initiative that centres climate action in the hands of traditional communities and environmental defenders, has provided platforms for just transition and local solutions within inclusive and community-led settings. COP30 has taken prompt steps towards implementing these, making it historic in terms of the gains of Indigenous rights. As such, grassroots movements are growing in political relevance, especially in bringing global climate governance to justice. COP30 was successful in doing so within the context of Indigenous rights, but whether it can take further steps into mitigation at the inter-state level remains unseen.

It is without denying that COP30 has been revolutionary in terms of advocating and representing Indigenous peoples within environmental action. While it is an important step to addressing climate change, such actions remain inconsistent with the urgency of our planet’s destruction. States and other involved political actors need to understand the severity of the situation at hand in order to achieve consensus on collective environmental efforts. This is absent today, but there is hope for the future. Achieving the formal recognition of Indigenous rights was the first step.  

Written by Charlotte Jolivet

Edited by Aditya Gupta