Support CleanTechnica's work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

I have been covering the annual Conference Of Parties climate action meetings sponsored by the United Nations for CleanTechnica since the now famous Paris conference in 2015. What a time of hope that was! For one shining moment, it seemed the people of the world had come together to finally address the issue of carbon dioxide pollution and the impact it had on the Earth’s climate.

Then, just a year later, the US elected a know-nothing tyrant who promptly abdicated on all the promises the country had made to the other nations of the world in Paris. Those other nations took notice and their ardor for climate action cooled considerably. “If the US was giving everyone else the finger, why should we hold to our own commitments?” became the prevailing attitude.

Since then, every year has brought a new COP conference and every year much is expected but little is accomplished. The backsliding and flight from the lofty principles outlined by the climate hosts has become so predictable that the results of each conference can be predicted with unerring accuracy months in advance.

That is precisely what happen in Brazil this year. In all, more than 1600 lobbyists for fossil fuel companies were on hand to twist arms and preach the wisdom of going slow in addressing a problem that is growing faster with every passing year, month, and day. The end result for those advocating for an end to burning fossil fuels was a big fat goose egg — nada, zilch, zero.

Oh, there were some mutterings about not clearcutting the Amazon rainforest, and that is a modicum of good news. But, overall, no significant progress was made toward reining in the amount of carbon dioxide and methane pouring into the atmosphere every second.

The Consensus Model

The problem with the COP conferences is that the nations must reach a consensus on the final product. Getting 193 groups to agree the sun rises in the east is hard; getting them to agree to a comprehensive plan to transition away from making fossil fuels the basis of their economies is a virtual impossibility.

The best that can happen is to convince those detractors to abstain from participating in the final statement, as happened at COP28 in 2023 in Dubai when the final agreement timidly requested the nations of the world begin thinking about transitioning away from reliance on fossil fuels. In that case, the representatives of the oil producing companies sat stone faced during the closing ceremonies and looking as if someone had shot their favorite camel.

Assessing the results of the COP30 conference, Bloomberg Green said the meeting “revealed deep fractures, particularly around which countries should pay for adaptation and how to get the world off fossil fuels. The Global Mutirão decision, a title using the Brazilian hosts’ term for collective action, left out key provisions about winding down fossil fuel use that had been the benchmark for success by dozens of more ambitious countries.”

For some diplomats and experts, the outcome at best prevents a backslide on previous deals while doing little more to curb the oil, gas, and coal that remain the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions. “This COP was the manifestation of a new geopolitical reality,” said Linda Kalcher, executive director at Strategic Perspectives. Brazil, which hosted the conference, announced it would work on two initiatives that will take shape over the next year to combat deforestation and transition away from fossil fuels.

The Elephants Not In The Room

The two largest economies and historical emitters, the US and China, were conspicuous in their lack of impact. The US declined to send representatives, since it has withdrawn from all global climate accords, while China is focused more on trade rather than taking a stronger leadership role. China’s influence, then, is indirect. It is the undisputed leader in manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, storage batteries, and electric vehicles, all of which may ultimately do more to encourage a shift away from fossil fuels than flowery statements at climate conferences.

China’s manufacturing prowess is making those products available to the rest of the world at prices that undercut similar products from other nations and well below the cost of traditional energy sources and vehicles. It may be that economics will move the transition away from fossil fuels forward faster than diplomacy. It’s awfully hard to argue with low prices.

Matthias Zelinger, the head of the VDMA Competence Center for Climate and Energy in Germany, said of the final result at COP 30, “For anyone who expected a strong sign of stability and seriousness in global climate protection, the results are disappointing. Nevertheless, the Paris process for global climate protection remains relevant. Above all, we miss the definition of a process for how the international community intends to tackle the extensive phase-out of fossil fuels. Such a goal, which is almost indispensable for climate neutrality, requires further investment in climate protection technologies, and these need market prospects. Brazil has announced that it will continue to work on such a road map, but others would have to give up their blockade.”

Border Adjustments

One issue that caused dissension at COP30 was the process the European Union has put in place to penalize imports that are manufactured in ways that create more emissions than those sourced from inside the EU. The European policy makes perfect sense. Why encourage local companies to lower their carbon footprint — which may increase their cost of production — and then let lower priced imports with higher embedded emissions come in?

China in particular is opposed to what the EU is doing. The final statement from COP30 includes a swipe at such unilateral trade actions, Bloomberg says. It reaffirms that measures taken to combat climate change “should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.” It also sets up a dialogue and a high-level event in 2028 to consider the role of trade policy.

Zelinger of the VDMA said, “The uncertainty that arose in Belém about the future role of trading instruments such as the European CO2 border adjustment mechanism is also worrying. It is clear that we need instruments such as emissions trading, applied in partnership with many more countries. The German government and the EU must quickly follow up on initiatives in Belém that are not included in the final document.”

An Emphasis On Adaptation

Bill Gates got a truckload of scorn recently — and deservedly so — for saying the world needs to put more emphasis on adaptation and be less focused on staying below some arbitrary amount of global heating. Many see that statement as a sop to the current administration, while others say Gates is just expressing much needed realism.

It is more than likely the world has already passed 1.5°C of heating and will hit 2.6°C by the end of this century. That is partially good news. According to some, the world was headed for nearly 4°C of heating, but the Paris agreements have moderated that trajectory somewhat. Still, 2.6° is enough to lead to melting glaciers, higher sea levels, stronger storms, and more droughts, so Gates thinks we should stop trying to slow a speeding freight train and focus more on adapting to the new normal.

That attitude was prominent at COP30 this year. Bloomberg said, “adaptation was elevated at this year’s COP, a recognition that climate damage is happening now and the need to adapt is here. Worsening storms, floods, droughts and wildfires pose a huge burden, especially on developing countries and small island states.”

COP30 did call for tripling adaptation finance by 2035, but that is five years longer than what developing nations wanted. “In the Marshalls, our adaptation needs are overwhelming,” Kalani Kaneko, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, said at the summit. “Tripling the adaptation goal is possible,” the World Resources Institute said in a recent report, “but every relevant source of finance will need to step up, and the system will need to work better as a whole.”

No Road Map

Perhaps the best synopsis of this year’s climate conference came from Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who said, “Implementation requires concrete roadmaps to accelerate the phase out of fossil fuels, and we got neither.” A representative from Colombia said her country refused to accept parts of the decision as written. “Denying the best available science not only puts the climate regime at risk, but also our own existence. Which message are we sending the world, Mr. President?”

In a post on X, Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote, “I do not accept that in the COP 30 declaration. It is not clearly stated, as science says, that the cause of the climate crisis is the fossil fuels used by capital. If that is not said, everything else is hypocrisy.” He noted that life on the planet is only possible “if we separate from oil, coal, and natural gas as a source of energy … Colombia opposes a COP 30 declaration that does not tell the scientific truth to the world.”

And so, another global climate conference has ended not with a bang, but rather a whimper. It’s hard not to think of these events as a real-world example of Lucy Van Pelt pulling the football away from Charlie Brown at the last second. Every year we are teased with promises and every year we end with results that represent sideways waffling at best and backsliding at worst.

If the magic of Adam Smith’s unseen hand is going to save us from ourselves, it will need to do so quite soon, because time for the human race is growing critically short. As we will soon learn to our sorrow, it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.