|
Akriti Sharma
24 November 2025 |
1. Right direction, wrong speed, says President Lula
On 11 November, at the opening plenary session of COP30 in Belém, President of Brazil, Lula da Silva, said: “We are moving in the right direction but at the wrong speed.” He added: “Crossing 1.5°C is a risk we cannot take,”; “climate change is not a threat to the future, it is a tragedy of the present.” Calling COP30, the COP of implementation and truth, he said: “now is the moment to defeat the denialists,” and “without the Paris Agreement the world would suffer from catastrophic warming.”
The following are the key takeaways from President Lula’s speech. First, the need to reclaim climate negotiations, recognising the developing countries’ needs. President Lula highlighted that at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, when climate multilateralism was at its peak and recognised the principle of differentiation through common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). As climate negotiations return to Brazil after three decades, there is a need to reclaim the enthusiasm that drove the climate convention.
Second, the urgency of climate action. Calling COP30 the COP of truth and implementation, President Lula highlighted the urgency to address the crisis at hand. He criticised climate denialists for being obscurantists in the era of science and evidence. Such disinformation and fake news by climate denialists undermines the spirit of climate multilateralism.
Third, call to action. He appealed to the countries to focus on major agenda points, the new USD 1.3 trillion finance roadmap, and aligning financial flows. Adaptation and mitigation are also central, with negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation indicators, national action plans, and global stocktake follow-up. He also stressed a fair and just transition through reducing asymmetries between the global North and South.
2. Call for the implementation of a new climate finance goal
On 15 November, at the third high-level ministerial dialogue on climate finance, Li Gao, the Vice Minister of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, China, called on developed countries to “present an implementation roadmap for the delivery of the USD300 billion [per year]…including short-term and medium-term actions for providing the necessary guarantee”. The Chinese Vice Minister also called for the establishment of “a new quantified target and implementation plan for adaptation finance”. He added: “the delivery of the USD300 billion in the new collective quantified goal on finance [NCQG] should serve as an opportunity to rebuild trust [between parties].
The following are the key takeaways from the Vice President’s speech. First, trust deficit is the core of the climate finance faultline. China strongly called for a roadmap from the developed countries on the delivery of USD 300 billion each year, with medium-term and long-term pathways. The New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance (NCQG) must be an instrument of trust-building between developed and developing countries. Developing countries, including China, believe that not meeting climate finance needs is the major trust collapse between the two blocs.
Second, pushback against private finance and debt as climate finance. The earlier goal of USD 100 billion per year has not been met, and developing countries are demanding quality finance rather than quantity. Developed countries have been called out for considering export credits, private finance and debt loans as climate finance, which has faced pushback from the developing countries.
Third, adaptation finance is the priority for developing countries. Developing countries have raised concerns about the lack of adaptation finance, given their frontline role in climate impacts but limited resources to address them. China along with support from G77, asked the developed countries to focus on more finance for adaptation, which is the need of the hour.
3. Unilateral Trade Measures (UTM) as a hindrance to the just transition
On 14 November, during the negotiations on the Unilateral Trade measures, developing countries called UTM would “hinder [climate] ambition, violate the right to development, and exacerbate poverty, clearly attacking the very concept of just transitions,”
India said “Unilateral trade measures involve actions taken by a single country or a group of countries to restrict or alter trade practices based on standards…to incentivise foreign nations to modify their practices or penalise those that do not.” “UTMs such as the CBAM, serve to protect industries in countries that already benefit from historical and ongoing advantages…these industries will now be further protected [via
CBAM] at the cost of industries in developing countries.”
Following are the major takeaways from the UTM negotiations. First, developed countries favour green trade. Developed countries, including the EU, Australia, Japan, and the UK, favour the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) (of the EU) to impose a carbon tax on imports from other countries. Developed countries see it as an economic opportunity that aligns with the 1.5-degree goal.
Second, developing countries call it protectionism. Developing countries united against the UTM as it shifts the mitigation burden on them, protecting industries in the developed countries. Countries including Saudi Arabia, the African Group of Nations, and Qatar consider it as mere economic extraction, not climate ambition.
Third, undermining the just transition. UTM could cause reverse financial flows to developed countries that could exacerbate structural inequalities in the developing countries, undermining the agreed principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Europe being politically strong for its global push for CBAM, UTMs will remain another key point of contention between the two blocs, which could entangle the WTO and UNFCCC in competing legal jurisdiction.
4. Adoption of the Belem Political package, but without phasing out fossil fuels
On 15 November, COP30 President Ambassador André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, outlined the mode of work for the second week of COP, saying “towards a strong and successful work in Belém” On 18 November, the COP 30 Presidency released a draft text titled, “Global Mutirão: uniting humanity in a global mobilization against climate change” He said: “we want this to be an adaptation COP, (and) the GGA is central. The push for adaptation resources is significant.”
COP 30 President while delivering closing remarks said: “As President [Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva] said at the opening of this COP, we need road-maps so that humanity – in a just and planned manner – can overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, halt and reverse deforestation and mobilise resources for these purposes. I, as President of COP 30, will therefore create two road-maps: one on halting and reverting deforestation and another to transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner.”
Following are the key takeaways from the closing remarks of the COP30 President. First, the Mutirao. It emphasised aligning with the 1.5 degrees target, focusing on implementation in nationally determined contributions, tripling climate finance, just transition, progressing adaptation, and transitioning away from fossil fuels. The Political Package tabled under the Brazilian presidency is a strong signal to focus on implementation rather than any binding commitment on fossil fuels and deforestation. Voluntary and non-binding commitments are beneficial for the developing countries that need to secure development pathways while holding developed countries responsible for historical emissions.
Second, fossil fuel is the breaking point. The central faultline is the fossil fuel phase-out. Countries, including the EU, SIDS, and LDCs, demand a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels. The Brazilian Presidency has opted for a soft language, referring to it as “transitioning away” from fossil fuels. However, the developing countries have triggered strong pushback against the phase-out, insisting that prescriptive language must be accompanied by a roadmap of financial and technological commitments from the developed world. It is a compromise that satisfies none of the climate clubs but holds the spirit of climate multilateralism.
Third, no deal is better than an inequitable one. The current political package seems like a compromise between the two blocs that might appear non-transformative. Several countries argued that diluted or soft language in the text would promote low ambition and delay in climate action. However, binding commitments on fossil fuel phase-out would legitimise loopholes, undermine the principle of equity, and shift disproportionate burden to the least responsible sections.
About the authors
Akriti Sharma is a PhD Scholar at NIAS.
