Fractious Cop30 ends with fragile climate deal as US absence looms – Firstpost

In the turbulent final hours of the UN climate summit in Brazil, Cop30 negotiators managed to secure an agreement that exposed both geopolitical rifts and the difficulty of taking collective action. Following gate-side protests, pressure from oil exporting countries, and vocal dissent from many delegations, the agreement reflects the limits of global climate cooperation in the wake of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from international climate policy.

Agreement reached under pressure and chaos

With delegates exhausted and the standoff deepening, Cop30 President Andrés Correa do Lago warned that failure will reward those who oppose climate cooperation. His appeal came as talks were on the verge of collapse amid sharp disagreements over fossil fuels, finance and forest conservation.

Nearly 200 countries backed the final agreement, which included a commitment to triple adaptation finance for developing countries, but avoided any mention of fossil fuels, the main driver of global warming. The gaffe disappointed many countries and observers described the outcome as ranging from a diplomatic victory to a “very bad joke”, indicating a growing gap between ambition and political reality.

The two-week path to reaching the final agreement involved all the human drama associated with extreme fatigue, frustration and stubbornness: indigenous protesters attacked the conference gates; Saudi Arabia threatened to break the deal if its oil industry was targeted; Panama called the talks a clown show; And the closing ceremony was postponed for an hour as host Brazil tried to resolve the objections.

America’s absence casts a long shadow

The conference was held without a formal US delegation, after President Donald Trump abandoned climate cooperation and dismissed global warming as a hoax. This is a sharp departure from previous summits, where Washington worked with the EU to help push global ambitions.

EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra acknowledged that reaching consensus without the world’s largest historical emitter was “a huge blow”. The EU ultimately conceded its effort to include fossil fuel transition language in the face of resistance led by Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was recently welcomed to the White House.

For many developing and climate-sensitive countries, the results fell far short of expectations. Panama called this not neutrality but “collusion”. Forest-rich countries complained that the “Forest COP” made no meaningful progress on stopping deforestation.

Adaptation funding grows, but ambition stalls

Developing countries won a significant victory: a commitment to triple adaptation funding to help countries deal with rising seas, extreme heat and intense storms. A coalition of small island states called the agreement a “victory for multilateralism”, while others stressed its limitations.

Former US Vice President Al Gore described the agreement as “floor – not ceiling”, noting that although oil-producing states blocked fossil-fuel phase-outs, Brazil will now lead an effort to draw a global roadmap with the support of more than 80 countries.

The real test of COP30’s fragmented agreement is yet to come. Brazil should now begin negotiations toward a fossil-fuel transition plan and mobilize an expanded pool of adaptation finance. Analysts have warned that confidence in the process remains fragile after the summit, which many participants have described as opaque, politically tense and procedurally messy.

As one expert said, COP30 demonstrated both the urgent need for climate cooperation and the increasingly volatile global politics that threaten to derail it.

with inputs from agencies