Late on Saturday, 22 November, COP30 finally ended. As others before it, COP30 observed the cardinal rule of running into a “dramatic” overtime, with uncertainty saturating the already humid atmosphere, gaveled decisions being contested, voices raised, even some booing occurred, and concluded, as others before it, by kicking the proverbial climate can down the long COP avenue, to COP 31 in Turkey.

Unfortunately, the power of money overcame the power of scientific logic and truth and ignored the plight of the already millions of climate victims. Apparently, the overriding principle, which appears to be cast in stone, is “money talks”.

This has guided decision-taking in the previous 29 COPs, and COP30 failed to be the exception to the rule. It was not easy, anyway.

Put simply, the rich petrostates refuse to lose the windfall revenues from fossil fuels and the shockingly high subsidies that run into trillions of dollars.

As a result, they did not even begin to discuss the concept of “fossil fuel phase out,” which is, was, and will continue to be, at the top of the must-list of any scientist, activist, and well-meaning person.

This refusal marked COP30, as it did all the COPs that preceded it, because it constitutes the single most determining condition to end carbon dioxide emissions, and failure to achieve it spells disaster for all.

But really now? What did we expect?

How could we all be so naïve – I include myself in this list – when all the signs were telling us the opposite:

First and maybe most important of all, the new resident of the White House had left us with no doubt, before, during and after the American elections, that the number one item in his agenda was the “drill baby drill” dogma. This was a pledge to his election support base and he left no doubt that he would honour it. And he honoured it anyway he could:

~He withdrew USA, for the second time from the COP21 Paris Agreement. The first time he did that was in 2017, when he was elected President for the first time.

~He declared in his speech as USA President at the United Nations that climate change is the biggest hoax of all time and those who believe differently are stupid.

~He takes shots at renewable energy sources, especially wind turbines, with any chance he has, usually quoting fake news and fake stories

~He has canceled decades of scientific research in the US with Executive Orders. He has taken down online platforms with scientific evidence on climate change. Finally and most importantly, he is canceling a 2009 EPA provision that classifies greenhouse gases as harmful to people and environment.

~He has approved new fossil fuel exploration projects and has canceled projects or financing to renewable energy projects.

~He makes no effort to hide that his best friends and allies are the Arab petrostates and petro-billionaires.

~He forced the deal to cut global shipping emissions to be abandoned (with help from Saudi Arabia) by threatening countries with tariffs if they voted in favour of it. To cap it all, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared the outcome a “huge win” for Trump.

~The only fossil fuels he is publicly opposed to are those that come from Russia, although I am not so sure about that either.

~And of course, the US did not participate in COP30 with an official delegation.

Also consider

We must also appreciate that many countries agree with his energy policy, irrespective of whether they admit it publicly or not, but as actions speak louder than words, consider the following:

First of all, the host Brazil granted an exploration license in the Amazon just a month before COP30 began!

And since I mentioned the host of COP30, let’s herald the host of COP31, Turkey. Turkey also follows a pro-fossil fuel policy, at home as well as abroad (Somalia), and it is said that it facilitates Russian fossil fuel exports to the world. Finally, the COP31 co-organiser, Australia, has 19 new fossil fuel projects under development.

To show my national impartiality, let me report that my home country of Greece, sadly, is still celebrating its entry into the fossil fuel producers club.

Given the above, why on earth did we expect something different at COP30?

Also, consider how many countries are actively participating in discussions, negotiations and signings of new fossil exploration projects.

Too many!

This means that the “fight” waged by the petrostates at the COPs, always with the help of hundreds of fossil fuel lobbyists, is also supported “silently” by other countries.

But most importantly, this means that a never-ending series of new fossil fuel exploration contracts “ensure” the maintenance and worsening of the effects of the climate crisis for many decades to come.

Permit me to sidetrack here: a lot of people refer to the climate crisis, but most do so as a punch line. It’s not. The current climate crisis timeline is measured in decades, if not centuries and this will depend primarily on what COP30 failed to deliver, “the fossil fuel phase out”. The fastest we implement this agreement the fewer decades our children and grandchildren will walk in hell on earth. As simple as that.

Back to the main story

Finally, of course, it was only to be expected that the US stance on fossil fuels, would encourage Saudi Arabia and other oil states to fight even harder to block progress on the issue of breaking away from fossil fuels.

And, unfortunately for the rest of us, they did it successfully.

That is why there was no mention of fossil fuels in the crucial final decision, despite the fact that a coalition of 90 developed and developing countries pushed for the opposite. The oil tycoons, Saudi Arabia and their allies, fought and succeeded in ensuring that there was no mention.

As it has been the case since COP01.

Let me repeat that the first time the term “fossil fuels” was incorporated in a COP decision was COP26 and the first time it was used in connection to the climate crisis (god forbid) in a COP decision was in COP28.

Up to then, we were pursuing the reduction of CO2 emissions as if they were… self-emitted…

Let’s be honest, we didn’t stand a chance at COP30

Civil society and many nations put up a great fight but the odds were against us. A battle was lost, but the war on fossil fuels is continuing.

COP30 was heralded as the COP of implementation, the first COP after the amazing landmark ICJ Advisory Opinion^xxxiv on Climate Change and the COP held on the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, but it did not live up to it.

On the other hand, there were a number of major issues which progressed in a positive way and victories were recorded.

Let’s look at the outcomes with a “half full” climate action glass attitude

1. Please do not underestimate this, Multilateralism, which was momentarily in danger, survived

The petrostates and their allies threatened to withdraw from the conference, when they were pressured for a decision on fossil fuels phase out. But we remained united.

Ultimately a not-so-good decision is better than no decision at all.

The ultimate battle, which is to address the climate crisis, requires unity even with sacrifices.

Thus, finally 194 countries appeared united in the final decisions. As UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said: “This agreement does not have all the ambition we would have wanted but it commits to keeping 1.5C alive.

2. Adaptation funding has tripled, but it is still not enough

Adaptation funding, from rich nations to poor and vulnerable countries to help them protect their people from the accelerating impacts of the climate crisis, which they did not cause, should not require explanations.

Harjeet Singh of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation and a leading figure in the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty summarised it beautifully: “The outcome on adaptation is an insult to every community currently underwater or on fire. The refusal to commit to scaling up finance to the necessary $300 billion annually for adaptation leaves the unprepared defenseless against inevitable ruin.

“Instead, we have been handed an aspiration to triple funding by 2035—a timeline that ignores the urgency of the climate disasters striking us today.  By failing on their past commitment to double adaptation finance by 2025 and keeping the baseline of the new target vague, developed nations have attempted to dilute their responsibility, forcing the world’s most vulnerable to face the rising waters with empty hands.”

3. Just Transition Mechanism

The creation of the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) for a Just Transition, is considered by all a victory for civil society. It is a plan that will ensure that the transition to a green economy around the world is done fairly and protects the rights of all people, including workers, women and indigenous peoples.

Unfortunately, this is the only major “clear cut” victory in this conference.

4. Loss and Damage

The most significant outcome of COP30 on Loss and Damage is the completion of the third review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM). The WIM serves as a policy and knowledge hub for the Loss and Damage landscape under the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement.

And as for funds to “Fill the Fund” for Loss and Damage…. very slim pickings.

The value of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) of at least $1.3 trillion in climate finance annually by 2035 for developing countries, and the more concrete, goal of at least $300 billion annually by the same year agreed at COP29, with the “Baku to Belém Roadmap,” a two-year work programme, ended with $250 million, for a trial run.

To be positive one can say that at least The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), as it is officially known, is now operational. May it grow to trillions very soon.

The expression “put your money where your mouth is” comes to mind, time and again…

5. (unofficial) Roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels

The failure to agree on a roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels, which marked COP30, led to efforts for another agreement on a roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels, but this time a voluntary one.

It was an attempt by the Brazilian Presidency to save face. Thus, it announced that the plan would proceed outside the UN process and would be “married” to the plan actively supported by Colombia as a member of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, along with about 90 other countries, for a summit scheduled for April 2026.

6. Roadmap for the protection of forests

If failing to agree on a road map for the transition away from fossil fuels was a disaster, the failure to create a roadmap for the protection of forests, was monumental.

Think about it: Brazil was selected as the host country for COP30, primarily for the Amazon, the global lungs. Hosting the climate summit in the Amazon was intended to highlight the vital role of forests in the climate. And what better way to do this by fostering a roadmap to end deforestation.

But it was not to be.

The failure is mainly attributed to the Brazilian mistake of tying up this roadmap with the roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. So when the second failed it dragged the first along into the abyss.

Rumour has it that linking the two roadmaps was either a terrible diplomatic blunder by the hosts or sabotage by the Brazilian Foreign Ministry, which has long focused on Brazil becoming a fossil fuel producer and exporter…

Either way the two failures will accompany COP30 in the history books.

7. (unofficial) Roadmap for the protection of forests

The failure to establish a forest protection roadmap was also partially compensated with the extra-UN agreement, called “Tropical Forest Forever Facility”, which will be a multi-billion dollar investment fund that will pay nations to preserve trees instead of clearing forests for crops.

“It will operate by mobilising philanthropic, public and private capital, then reinvesting these resources in a diversified investment portfolio. Revenues generated by the TFFF will reward Tropical Forest Countries a fixed amount per hectare of conserved or restored forest while seeking to maintain the TFFF’s capital base, ensuring the facility’s long-term sustainability. The TFFF is where conservation meets capital generation.”^xlvi

One hopes that it will have better luck than similar endeavours which rely on philanthropists and the market. An example is the SDGs which “with just five years to go, only 15% of the SDGs are on track to be achieved.”

So, now what?

Although the official COP failed to rise to the height required by scientific knowledge and the protection of humanity, and especially all vulnerable states and people, it is clear that civil society in all its passionate, colourful, persistent, loud and creative manifestations has managed to make its message clearly heard and more loudly than ever.

If you think that this reads like a leftist manifesto, think again. It’s a conclusion based totally on the best available science.

Continuing to use fossil fuels for profit will result in the worsening of the impacts of the climate crisis as well as lengthening its duration. This simply put means deaths and loss and damage that we cannot even begin to estimate. This is what science tells us.

On the other hand, certain political platforms, such as Trump’s, claim, without any scientific proof, that climate change is a hoax.

Yes, it is truly a choice between people over profit or vice versa.

So, what do we do?

We become louder until our voices are heard and the right decisions are gaveled.

Why? Because we know that we have science on our side.

It’s that simple.

This article, first published on ESI Africa, was written by Prof. Ioannis Tsipouridis, a Senior Research Fellow at Strathmore University and a Renewable Energy Consultant Engineer and Climate Action Advocate