🔗 Share this article

While dawn illuminated the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, negotiators remained stuck in a airless conference room, uncertain whether it was day or night. They had been 12 hours in difficult discussions, with numerous ministers representing various coalitions of countries from the least developed nations to the most developed economies.

Tempers were short, the air heavy as sweaty delegates acknowledged the grim reality: they were unlikely to achieve a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The 30th UN climate conference teetered on the brink of total collapse.

The central impasse: Fossil fuels

As science has told us for well over a century, the greenhouse gases produced by consuming fossil fuels is warming our planet to critical levels.

Yet, during over three decades of regular climate meetings, the crucial requirement to cease fossil fuel use has been referenced only once – in a resolution made two years ago at previous UN climate talks to "transition away from fossil fuels". Officials from the Gulf states, Russia, and a few other countries were adamant this would not happen again.

Increasing pressure for change

At the same time, a increasing coalition of countries were equally determined that movement on this issue was vitally needed. They had developed a initiative that was attracting expanding support and made it apparent they were prepared to stand their ground.

Developing countries desperately wanted to move forward on securing financial assistance to help them cope with the already disastrous impacts of climate disasters.

Critical moment

By the early hours of Saturday, some delegates were prepared to leave and cause breakdown. "It was on the edge for us," remarked one energy minister. "I was prepared to walk away."

The breakthrough happened through discussions with Saudi Arabia. Near 6am, principal delegates separated from the main group to hold a private conversation with the lead Saudi negotiator. They pressed language that would obliquely recognise the global commitment to "shift from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Unanticipated resolution

Instead of explicitly referencing fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the previous commitment". Following reflection, the Saudi delegation surprisingly approved the wording.

Delegates expressed relief. Applause rang out. 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, insufficient step that will minimally impact the climate's continued progression towards crisis. But nevertheless a significant departure from total inaction.

Key elements of the agreement

• Alongside the subtle acknowledgment in the official document, countries will start developing a framework to phase out fossil fuels
• This will be mostly a optional undertaking led by Brazil that will report back next year
• Addressing the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to remain below the 1.5C limit was also put off to next year
• Developing countries obtained a tripling to $120bn of regular financial support to help them cope with the impacts of environmental crises
• This sum will not be completely provided until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "equitable change process" to help people working in polluting businesses transition to the renewable industry

Mixed reactions

As the world approaches the brink of climate "irreversible changes" that could devastate environments and plunge whole regions into chaos, the agreement was insufficient as the "giant leap" needed.

"Negotiators delivered some small advances in the right direction, but given the magnitude of the climate crisis, it has failed to rise to the occasion," warned one climate expert.

This flawed deal might have been the maximum achievable, given the international tensions – including a US president who ignored the talks and remains wedded to oil and coal, the rising tide of nationalist politics, ongoing conflicts in various areas, intolerable levels of inequality, and global economic instability.

"Major polluters – the oil and gas companies – were at last in the spotlight at the climate summit," comments one climate activist. "There is no turning back on that. The political space is accessible. Now we must convert it to a genuine solution to a safer world."

Deep fissures revealed

Although nations were able to welcome the gavelling through of the deal, Cop30 also highlighted major disagreements in the only global process for confronting the climate crisis.

"Climate conferences are consensus-based, and in a period of geopolitical divides, agreement is progressively challenging to reach," observed one senior UN official. "I cannot pretend that Cop30 has delivered everything that is needed. The gap between our current position and what evidence necessitates remains concerningly substantial."

Should the world is to avert the gravest consequences of climate crisis, the UN climate talks alone will prove insufficient.