🔗 Share this article

As dawn illuminated the Amazonian city of Belém on Saturday morning, negotiators remained confined in a airless conference room, oblivious whether it was day or night. For more than 12 hours in difficult discussions, with scores ministers representing 17 groups of countries ranging from the poorest nations to the wealthiest economies.

Patience wore thin, the air thick as sweaty delegates confronted the sobering reality: there would not be a comprehensive agreement in Brazil. The international climate negotiations hovered near the brink of total collapse.

The major obstacle: Fossil fuels

Scientific evidence has shown for more than a century, the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels is increasing temperatures on our planet to alarming levels.

Nevertheless, during nearly three decades of yearly climate meetings, the urgent need to cease fossil fuel use has been mentioned only once – in a agreement made two years ago at Cop28 to "move beyond fossil fuels". Delegates from the Arab Group, Russia, and multiple other countries were adamant this would not occur another time.

Mounting support for change

At the same time, a expanding group of countries were similarly resolved that advancement on this issue was urgently necessary. They had developed a initiative that was gathering expanding support and made it clear they were ready to dig in.

Developing countries desperately wanted to make progress on securing economic resources to help them cope with the growing impacts of environmental crises.

Turning point

By the early hours of Saturday, some delegates were willing to walk out and force a collapse. "The situation was precarious for us," commented one national delegate. "I was prepared to walk away."

The pivotal moment came through talks with Saudi Arabia. Near 6am, principal delegates left the main group to hold a closed-door meeting with the head Saudi negotiator. They urged wording that would subtly reference the global commitment to "transition away from fossil fuels" made two years earlier in Dubai.

Surprising consensus

As opposed to explicitly mentioning fossil fuels, the text would refer to "the Dubai agreement". Upon deliberation, the Saudi delegation unforeseeably approved the wording.

Delegates expressed relief. Applause rang out. The agreement was done.

With what became known as the "Amazon accord", the world took another small step towards the systematic reduction of fossil fuels – a hesitant, inadequate step that will minimally impact the climate's steady march towards disaster. But nevertheless a important shift from complete stagnation.

Key elements of the agreement

• Complementing the indirect reference in the official document, countries will start developing a framework to systematically reduce fossil fuels
• This will be largely a non-binding program led by Brazil that will report back next year
• Addressing the essential decreases in greenhouse gas emissions to stay within the 1.5C limit was similarly postponed to next year
• Developing countries secured a significant expansion to $120bn of regular financial support to help them cope with the impacts of extreme weather
• This funding will not be fully available until 2035
• Workers will benefit from a "just transition mechanism" to help people working in polluting businesses transition to the clean economy

Differing opinions

As the world hovers near the brink of climate "irreversible changes" that could eliminate habitats and throw whole regions into disorder, the agreement was insufficient as the "giant leap" needed.

"Cop30 gave us some small advances in the proper course, but in light of the severity of the climate crisis, it has not met the occasion," warned one environmental analyst.

This imperfect deal might have been all that was possible, given the geopolitical headwinds – including a Washington administration who shunned the talks and remains wedded to oil and coal, the growing influence of nationalist politics, persistent fighting in various areas, unacceptable degrees of inequality, and global economic instability.

"The climate arsonists – the fossil fuel giants – were at last in the crosshairs at these negotiations," notes one policy convener. "There is no turning back on that. The opportunity is accessible. Now we must transform it into a genuine solution to a protected environment."

Major disagreements revealed

Although nations were able to applaud the formal approval of the deal, Cop30 also exposed significant divisions in the only global process for confronting the climate crisis.

"Climate conferences are consensus-based, and in a era of geopolitical divides, agreement is progressively challenging to reach," observed one senior UN official. "We should not suggest that these talks has achieved complete success that is needed. The gap between where we are and what science demands remains concerningly substantial."

Should the world is to prevent the most severe impacts of climate collapse, the UN climate talks alone will not be nearly enough.