What was supposed to be the climate summit of truth ended this weekend in Belém, Brazil, with a highly vague closing statement that offered no concrete commitments. In other words, COP30 in Belém ended with a weak but not-zero deal.
It modestly advances climate finance and “just transition” issues, but ducks the central question of a phase-out of fossil fuels. As a result, the best current assessments say it barely changes the global warming trajectory, which still points to roughly 2.5 to 2.6°C this century under current policies.
Paris Climate Agreement
The bar was set high for this climate summit. Ten years after the historic climate conference in Paris, where a legally binding agreement on combating global warming was reached for the first time, it was time for the next step. But those high expectations turned to disappointment once the final text was presented.
Although more than eighty of the participating countries urged a concrete step-by-step plan for phasing out fossil fuels, the term ‘fossil fuels’ did not even appear in the final text. The European Union, in particular, wanted a more ambitious agreement, but this did not happen because Europe found too few powerful allies.
Colombia
The Benelux is one of the driving forces behind the transition away from fossil fuels. The transition away from fossil fuels was actually already agreed upon at COP28 in Dubai in 2023, but it wasn’t followed up on last year. At COP30, Colombia primarily pushed to have the topic returned to the agenda.
Since the transition wasn’t included in the final text, Colombia decided to take the initiative itself with the so-called ‘Belém Declaration for transitioning away from fossil fuels’, signed by 24 countries.
This includes Colombia and the Benelux, as well as Australia, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, Austria, Panama, Spain, Slovenia, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu. This alliance aims to create a concrete multilateral framework for a gradual, irreversible, and just phase-out of fossil fuels. To this end, Colombia, together with the Netherlands, will organize a summit in the coastal city of Santa Marta on April 28 and 29, 2026.
What was actually agreed in Belém?
The main outcome is a package of compromises. The text reaffirms the Paris 1.5°C goal and warns that the remaining carbon budget is now “small and rapidly depleting”, but it adds no new binding emissions cuts and mostly “recalls” past pledges.
The final UN text did not refer to any fossil-fuel phase-out, and, instead, the text only referenced the softer “transition away” language agreed at COP28.
Regarding finance and adaptation, there is some progress, but it is delayed and vague. Countries have agreed in principle to triple adaptation finance to around $120bn/year by 2035, but this is framed as an aspirational effort rather than a hard obligation.
COP30 has formally established a UN ‘Just Transition Mechanism’, intended to support workers and communities in the shift away from high-carbon activities. Civil society and many Global South governments see this as one of the strongest rights-based elements of the outcome, but it currently lacks dedicated finance.
How does the world react?
Belgium went in calling for more substantial commitments from major polluters. The country joined about 30 countries threatening to block the final text unless it included a commitment to phasing out fossil fuels. Later, Walloon Air-Climate Minister Jean-Luc Crucke said the COP30 deal “fell short of what science demands,” regretting the lack of ambition on fossil fuels, but stressing that Belgium played an “ambitious and constructive” role.
Europe was disappointed: Once the draft text dropped explicit fossil-fuel language, the EU threatened to veto the deal as “too weak”, warning it did not advance emissions cuts or deforestation controls.
The European Parliament and MEPs describe the outcome as “slow progress, but insufficient to meet the climate crisis urgency” and “disappointing”, while welcoming that multilateralism and the Paris framework are still intact.
Under President Trump, the US has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and stepped back from UN climate diplomacy, leaving no formal high-level delegation at COP30. This absence has already weakened the traditional US-EU alliance, which often pushes for higher ambition, and worsened the global “pledges & targets” temperature scenario (from 2.1°C to 2.2°C), because the US NDC and net-zero target no longer effectively count.
At the same time, US companies, states, and cities continue to show up: reporting from Belém highlights US corporates and sub-national actors “holding the line” on climate commitments despite federal disengagement.
And what does it mean for global warming?
This means we’re still on course for about 2.6°C of warming by 2100 – only a 0.1°C improvement over recent years, and primarily due to updated modelling of China rather than new policies.
The COP28 goals are referenced in Belém and sit at the core of the COP30 “action agenda”, but COP30 did not lock in binding implementation plans or the necessary finance to ensure they are implemented. Nor did it secure the fossil-fuel phase-out roadmap under UN law, which many scientists see as essential actually to achieve those energy and methane goals. The Belém decision repeats that keeping 1.5°C “within reach” requires deep, rapid, and sustained emissions cuts, but it doesn’t translate this into new near-term obligations.
Meanwhile, critics are questioning whether such climate summits still have any purpose. Why does such a large climate summit have to be held every year? “Because the so-called ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP) is “crucial in the fight against climate change,” the climate agency’s website states. “To measure progress and negotiate the best ways to address climate change, taking into account each other’s circumstances.” Enthusiasm, however, is sometimes hard to find.
