The UN climate summit COP30 ended on a contentious note on Saturday, with countries approving a deal that contains no direct reference to phasing out fossil fuels despite intense demands from more than 80 nations, including the UK and the EU. The final agreement, called the Mutirão, instead asks countries to “voluntarily” accelerate efforts to reduce fossil fuel use, a formulation that has left climate-vulnerable nations deeply frustrated.
The summit took place at a time when the United Nations has warned that global efforts to restrict warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels are slipping out of reach, raising the stakes for a meaningful outcome. However, oil-producing countries insisted that they must be allowed to exploit their natural resources to support domestic economic growth.
Developing nations criticise weak language
In a dramatic turn during the final plenary, Colombia sharply criticised the COP30 presidency for pushing through the deal without allowing nations to formally register objections. Colombia’s climate delegate Daniela Durán González told BBC News that scientific evidence clearly establishes fossil fuels as the primary driver of global warming.
“More than 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels. It is time that the UN climate convention speaks directly about this,” she said.
Saudi Arabia and several other major oil-producing nations held firm that every state must be allowed to determine its own developmental pathway, echoing long-standing arguments that developed countries historically expanded through liberal fossil fuel use.
US absence leaves ‘hole’ in negotiations
For the first time since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, the United States did not send a delegation. President Donald Trump, who has called climate change “a con”, has said the US will exit the treaty entirely.
Veteran climate negotiator Jennifer Morgan described the US absence as a “hole”, noting that in marathon sessions where oil producers resisted stronger commitments, the lack of US backing made it harder for pro-ambition blocs to maintain pressure.
Talks marked by chaos, floods and even fire
The two-week summit — attended by nearly 50,000 delegates — was beset by logistical challenges. Heavy thunderstorms flooded the venue, restrooms ran out of water, and delegates packed into hot, humid rooms. Security was breached when around 150 protestors stormed the venue carrying placards reading “Our forests are not for sale.”
In a dramatic incident on Thursday, a fire erupted inside the Blue Zone, burning a hole through the roof and forcing an evacuation.
Accommodation shortages led some delegations to stay on cruise ships docked on the Amazon River, adding to the sense of an overburdened host city.
Brazil under scrutiny for Amazon oil plans
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva selected Belém as the host city to draw global attention to the Amazon and attract development investment. The country launched the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, aimed at incentivising rainforest protection, securing commitments worth USD 6.5 billion from various countries — though the UK has not yet pledged funds.
However, Brazil faced criticism from environmentalists and some negotiating parties over its own plans to expand offshore oil exploration near the mouth of the Amazon. Analysis by Global Witness indicates Brazil’s oil and gas output is expected to rise until the early 2030s.
Mixed reactions across blocs
While several island nations described the text as “imperfect” but still acceptable for keeping negotiations moving, many countries expressed clear dissatisfaction.
India welcomed the agreement, terming it “meaningful”. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) called the outcome a step, albeit a modest one, towards progress. Poorer countries took heart from promises of enhanced climate finance, especially for adaptation.
Sierra Leone’s Minister for Environment and Climate Change Jiwoh Abdulai noted that the deal acknowledges historical responsibility and the specific duties of developed nations.
However, the EU and UK openly admitted disappointment. EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said the bloc would have preferred “more ambition on everything”, while UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband called it “a step forward” but not the breakthrough many had hoped for.