Did COP30 make any progress in addressing climate change?

The COP30 summit was a bust

Simon Wilson claims that despite this, the world is becoming greener.

What transpired during COP30?

The COP30 climate jamboree in Brazil last month was a damp squib, and it wasn't just because of the pouring rain that caused the venues' ceilings to leak. The 30th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations was hailed as the turning point from promises to execution. However, there wasn't much evidence of action.

The US abstained from the conference for the first time. China was present, but it deliberately refrained from filling the leadership void. A weakened resolution that did not specifically address fossil fuels, the primary cause of global warming, was adopted at the summit's conclusion. Additionally, representatives at a summit in the Amazon rainforest city of Belm were unable to reach a consensus on the anticipated road map for a global agreement on deforestation.

Did anything come of COP30?

The summit decided on the next round of National Adaptation Plans, bureaucratic scorecards that signify an important and growing recognition that adaptation and mitigation, not just emissions reductions, must be part of global climate action. It also adopted a set of 59 global indicators to track progress toward the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). These were supported by national pledges to triple adaptation funding to approximately £120 billion annually by 2035.

Even though the final resolution explicitly acknowledged for the first time that the world is now likely to "overshoot" the 1.5C warming target in the 2015 Paris Agreement, the defining characteristic of COP30 was the absence of any mention of fossil fuels.

Is it time to do away with COPs?

Many believe this. For a long time, the COPs have been criticized for being talking shops that talk a lot about hot air, issuing numerous warnings about the consequences of inaction while seldom coming to a consensus on sound recommendations for how the world should stop dangerously rising temperatures. There has been a 34% increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the thirty years since the first congress in Berlin. Although it is slower than the 64 percent increase over the preceding three decades, it is still insufficient to prevent temperatures from rising above the thresholds that scientists claim will harm the planet irreversibly.

On the other hand, without the COPs in Kyoto (1997) and Paris (2015), the situation would have been much worse. According to Simon Stiell, head of the UN's Climate Framework, without the COP process, global temperatures would be on the verge of a truly catastrophic 5C increase rather than the currently projected 2.5C increase, which is only disastrous.

What is the current state of the temperature?

They're climbing. The UN's Emissions Gap report, which was released early last month, confirmed the long-held belief that global temperatures will rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels due to the continuous rise in carbon emissions since Paris. This was an unlucky prelude to this COP. In certain recent years, global temperatures have risen above that threshold; 2023 and 2024 are among the hottest on record. The Paris deal's benchmark, the 30-year rolling average, is still slightly below that level at roughly 1.37C.

The world needs to reduce emissions by about 55% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels in order to maintain even a 50% chance of keeping warming to 1.5C. However, only a small portion of that is offered by the national plans that were submitted during the COP process, placing global warming at about 2.5 degrees Celsius.

Are emissions going down now?

Oh, no. According to the Global Carbon Project, global emissions of carbon dioxide, which warms the planet, reached record highs in 2025, totaling about 39.1 billion tons. That represents a 1.1 percent increase over 2024. The majority of global emissions are caused by a small number of powerful nations, with China accounting for 32%, the US for 13%, India for 8%, and EU countries for 6%.

One encouraging indication is that emissions in China are now leveling off after years of rising, even though they are still rising in the US. Nevertheless, the International Energy Agency predicts that, until 2027, the demand for coal, for instance, will stay at roughly record highs. While demand declines elsewhere, it continues to rise in China, India, and other developing nations.

Does this mean that climate diplomacy has failed?

It might not be as significant. Pilita Clark writes in the Financial Times that it is a "COP clich to say the pavilions where countries host talks on green projects, technologies, and trends are more interesting than the formal negotiations." In Belm, it became evident that regardless of the decisions made at COPs, real-world conditions are changing. Electric vehicle sales are skyrocketing in developing nations like Ethiopia and Nepal. From Pakistan to Ukraine, the use of renewable energy is expanding.

Paul Polman, the former CEO of Unilever, agrees in Time that the economics of energy continue to shift decisively in favor of decarbonization. A large portion of the most significant advancements are occurring "around the formal process and despite its limitations" as the "centre of gravity is shifting" at COPs.

What's evolving?

For instance, in Belm, companies, investors, and local authorities outlined investment plans totaling £1 trillion for grid expansion and clean energy by 2030 through the Action Agenda, a non-negotiated process. Additionally, in order to create a fair, scientifically grounded plan for the phase-out of fossil fuels, the Netherlands and Colombia jointly announced a non-COP international conference in 2026.

Although they "may no longer be the primary engine of climate progress," multilateral institutions are still very important. Companies that plan well beyond political cycles will be at the forefront more and more, and the COP process needs to change to become more straightforward and implementation-focused or risk losing all credibility.

It's possible that last month's jamboree will be "remembered less for what it resolved and more for what it exposed: that ambition is outpacing architecture, and that the world is ready to move faster than the institutions designed to guide it."