While the forced entry of unbadged persons into the COP venue was followed by a high level of militarisation of the conference premises, it was not clear if the fire in the conference venue would make the negotiators and politicians recognise the climate emergency for what it is. Nothing could be more poignant than lapping flames at a climate conference. As the flames leapt, and teams of volunteers fought the fire, the temperature in the already hot venue literally leapt through the roof.
The opening and closing of COP30 were marked by significant events. Not about climate ambition or high sounding speeches but by unplanned events. First was the determined entry into the COP venue by indigenous protesters, who felt excluded from the conference and needed to be heard.
|
|
They charged through the security and raised the critical question about who was really at the table and whose cause was being negotiated. One of their demands was that they want their lands “free from agribusiness, oil exploration, illegal miners and illegal loggers.” The second event was the fire outbreak at one of the pavilions within the Blue Zone in the morning of 20 November – a day before the scheduled closure of the conference. As the flames leapt through the fabric of the ceiling, delegates and observers scrambled for the exits.
While the forced entry of unbadged persons into the COP venue was followed by a high level of militarisation of the conference premises, it was not clear if the fire in the conference venue would make the negotiators and politicians recognise the climate emergency for what it is. Nothing could be more poignant than lapping flames at a climate conference. As the flames leapt, and teams of volunteers fought the fire, the temperature in the already hot venue literally leapt through the roof. More than a dozen individuals were treated for smoke inhalation from the fire that was contained within minutes.
|
|
|---|
COP30 formally opened on 10 November but was preceded by a leaders conference on the 6th of November. At that conference, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil laid out his key ideas and hopes regarding COP30. Two of these were the TFFF or the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, and the need for the COP to get serious about phasing out fossil fuels. While the TFFF sounded poetic, even lyrical, it is nothing more than another variety of carbon deals or a false climate solution mechanism. It basically will not tackle the root cause of deforestation but will serve as a tool for the financialisation of Nature and may benefit carbon speculators more than forest dependent communities or even highly forested nations. It sounded new, but its antecedents date back more than a decade. It has been fiercely opposed by many.
The political correctness of climate negotiations, the deference to power, and the sheer lethargy that engulfs every session, are alarming, considering that the voluntary actions of nations and other entities are driving the world to a heating of more than 3 degrees above the emergence of capitalism. Even if humans can survive such a furnace, should we not realise there are billions of other beings that we share the planet with?
For thirty years, the Conference of Parties has skirted around recognising the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is the major driver of the climate crisis. Call it wilful denial. You would be right. Petrostates have regularly hosted the COPs and fossil lobbyists literally swarm the COP venues. Competing with the 1773 fossil fuel lobbyists that were at the COP29 in Baku, COP30 had 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists in its halls and lobbies, with the obvious objective of erasing any mention of fossil fuels in outcome documents or demanding its phasing out as an energy source. When fossil fuels were highlighted in the books at COP 26 in Glasgow, the reference was restricted to phasing down unabated coal.
When it raised its head at COP28 in UAE, the reference was to “transitioning from fossil fuels” in energy. A more determined effort to push for a phase out of fossil fuels got some life from President Lula’s candle, even though he is reportedly keen on extending the fossil fuels frontier in his country. As COP29 progressed, more than 80 countries joined the call for transitioning from fossil fuels, while almost 30 others are strongly opposed to such a roadmap. While this could make or mar the COP outcome, a global conference on this subject will be hosted by Colombia in April 2026.
The draft outcome of COP30 was framed in a nine-paged document titled the “Muritao Text.” It recognised and celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement and pushed for a new season of implementation beyond wordsmithing. The suggested focus areas for implementation in the draft text got interestingly spiced up with options, and even blank ones in places. The text appeared to have been carefully crafted so as not to ruffle the feathers of those who hold the purse strings and power. And so, rather than denouncing the slow pace of raising climate finance and condemning the lack of readiness to meet agreed targets, the text sought to accommodate everyone and even left blank options for those who care to fill these.
The political correctness of climate negotiations, the deference to power, and the sheer lethargy that engulfs every session, are alarming, considering that the voluntary actions of nations and other entities are driving the world to a heating of more than 3 degrees above the emergence of capitalism. Even if humans can survive such a furnace, should we not realise there are billions of other beings that we share the planet with?
As COP30 drew towards the finish line, the key issues that would mark it out as an “implementation” COP and as a conference that showed more seriousness towards far reaching decisions, remain an agreement on phasing out fossil fuels, finance for adaptation, a truly just energy transition and a climate finance that does not come as loans and other instruments that push vulnerable nations into further debt and further exacerbate geopolitical imbalances.
It is not surprising that funding adaptation remains a sticky issue, while more funding goes to mitigation efforts. Adaptation mostly concerns helping the vulnerable to cope with a crisis they did not create, while mitigation often offers options of investing in ideas and infrastructure that maintain current polluting paradigms and frees polluters to keep plying their trade. The rich and powerful nations spend up to $2.7 trillion on warfare annually and a fraction of that, coupled with a little shift towards peaceful coexistence, would definitely reduce the impacts of the climate crisis and move the world towards resilience built on solidarity. Will the petro-military complex allow this sensible path?
While negotiators dithered, the outside spaces raised serious and fundamental solutions to the climate crisis. Such outputs include A New Pledge For Mother Nature by the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) and the Declaration by the People’s Summit Towards COP30, which had up to 70,000 participants.
As COP30 drew towards the finish line, the key issues that would mark it out as an “implementation” COP and as a conference that showed more seriousness towards far reaching decisions, remain an agreement on phasing out fossil fuels, finance for adaptation, a truly just energy transition and a climate finance that does not come as loans and other instruments that push vulnerable nations into further debt and further exacerbate geopolitical imbalances.
Nnimmo Bassey is an environmental activist, author, a former chair of Friends of the Earth International and executive director of the Environmental Rights Action (ERA).
