COP this year has been, in fairness, a bit of an eye roller with far more bad than good.
After a couple of reasonably lacklustre annual United Nations global climate summits that have been remembered as much for their relative apathy and big business staying away as for what was discussed and agreed, this year’s COP in Brazil did not feel like it was set up for success.
There is the acute political tension, mostly coming from the US, that has seen a cooling of attitudes towards profound action to tackle climate change, and a sense from some companies that used to want to be seen and heard at COP that it is no longer the action-led forum it used to be. Or their narrative has become less climate-centric than it was.
But even so, in advance of the Belem summit there was criticism about the choice of venue, about the ongoing wisdom of flying so many people from around the world to talk about climate change and the expectation that some nations had become further apart in their willingness to take action.
This Sky News piece gives a gory reflection of COP 30’s limitations, political context and why “applause masked disappointment in the many weak parts of the agreement”.
What was actually agreed last weekend? In what was billed as the “adaptation COP”, the main outcome was an accord to triple investment in adaptation. But those discussions required fractious negotiation, mainly a tussle between European Union member states and large oil-producing nations over the inclusion of the words “fossil fuels” in the agreement paperwork.
It ultimately overshadowed the entire conference, and the process of striking a deal brought more reports of late night settlements and agonising discourse, as summarised by The Guardian with the proclamation that at least COP “avoided total failure”.
But according to Nature, this agreement came without an undertaking for a roadmap to transition the world away from fossil fuels, noting that, “previous deals on climate action have been plagued by delays in achieving financial goals as well as by disagreements about how much money should come from publicly funded grants, as opposed to loans and private investments”.
The BBC’s write up outlined why the summit was “deeply divisive” and speculated about how the UN may change the approach to future editions. “The COP idea served the world well in ultimately delivering the Paris climate agreement — but that was a decade ago and many participants feel that it doesn't have a clear, powerful purpose anymore,” it said.
Yet despite many observers having noted that the business world was far less present in Brazil than in previous years, companies committed to climate goals and that have invested heavily in a greener economy are not all silent.
This opinion piece by Swedish energy company Vattenfall covered the limited outcomes from COP but also why it remained committed and continued to pursue longstanding goals, for example.
What can we expect from future COPs then? Likely, the results of a broad rethink about the format and aims. Despite the criticism, it is likely the UN will continue to hold them — it would be a very bad look not to, after 30 years.
There will likely be less focus, in the current political and economic climate, on striking mega deals. And similarly, it has become a less attractive forum for companies wanting to be seen to affirm their climate commitments.
Instead, expect future COPs to be a public forum for trying to hold countries to account, and trying to sustain positive climate momentum. But also expect companies to do their own thing, separate to COP, referencing it where they need to but no longer treating it as central to their climate communication.
