Let’s try an extremely difficult summary. During the first days, we all essentially deluded ourselves. The Brazilian presidency had indeed released draft texts that included “also” some decidedly ambitious options, particularly regarding what had been declared the main objective of COP30: adopting a roadmap to exit fossil fuels. It’s that “also” that many underestimated.

No result on fossil fuels or deforestation
Alongside those ambitious proposals, there were far too many that were not ambitious at all. And above all, far too many “no text” markings, signalling that some governments were asking to skip issues altogether. Thus, two days before the end of the conference, the cold shower arrived. Any possibility of giving substance to the bland and vague wording (but, two years later, we must admit, almost a blessing) that came out of COP28 in Dubai – transitioning away from fossil fuels – was abandoned. The words fossil fuels no longer appeared anywhere in the draft.

It was chilling, compared to the early days of negotiations, during which the dynamism of the Brazilian presidency — even willing to break protocol in order to “reach the finish line” — had genuinely inspired hopes of a positive outcome. Reading such a flat and emptied draft, many even suspected a tactic: “Did the presidency do this to reshuffle the cards?”. The surprise was so great that people tried to interpret it as a strategy.

But no. The reality was and still is simply that the world has no agreement. The need to move beyond coal, oil and gas is not shared by all. Above all, it is not shared by the countries that burn the vast majority of these fossil fuels: The United States, China, India and Russia. And yes, certainly — China deserves a separate argument, since Beijing’s position is not Washington’s, there is no doubt about that. But in truth, we must face the fact that “a G2 would be enough to solve the climate crisis” (at least from a mitigation standpoint), as suggested in Belém by Tommaso Perrone, one of the most knowledgeable journalists covering COPs and negotiations.

The achievements at COP30 we cannot be satisfied with
This is the “everyone for themselves”. On phasing out fossil fuels, those saying no are the nations that extract them, sell them and/or heavily depend on them. On financial and technological transfers to developing nations, those saying no are those that prospered for nearly two centuries while devastating the planet. On compensation for loss and damage suffered by the most vulnerable nations, the same story.

Not even on deforestation was any result achieved, despite it being the first COP “at the gates of the Amazon.” And certainly, we cannot — more than that: we must not! — content ourselves with the fact that the final text includes a “call” (which is not a requirement) to triple adaptation funding by 2035 (five years later than the previous draft!). Nor with the fact that a Global Implementation Accelerator has been launched, without explaining what it is nor how it will function, but stating very clearly that it will be voluntary.

Or should we celebrate because governments were timidly asked to revise their emission reduction pledges, since current ones would lead us, at best, to 2.3–2.5 degrees of global warming? Or because a “Belém Mission to 1.5°C” was launched, again without explaining what it will involve and indicating that it will only be addressed again at COP31? Or because, with difficulty, the idea of establishing a Just transition mechanism was accepted to strengthen international cooperation for a fair transition? That would be like rejoicing because a patient with advanced cancer has been granted a tenth of a chemotherapy cycle.

Tempers flared at the final plenary in Belém
Seriously, are we joking? To judge anything fairly, it is always wise to take a step back and observe the “big picture”. At COP30, many even sighed with relief simply because the objective of limiting global average temperature increase to a maximum of 1.5 degrees was mentioned! An objective that had long seemed taken for granted, even after the IPCC explained (in its Special Report 1.5, in October 2018!) that the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is the difference between a crisis and a catastrophe.

Everyone for themselves, as we said. And this has been the case, in fact, for a decade now (since COP22 in Marrakech). A fundamental selfishness that until now had been — not always, but often — masked by compromise and diplomatic etiquette. Which collapsed spectacularly during the final plenary of COP30, with some nations literally banging their fists on the table, exchanging accusations and pointing fingers. Like in a forced family gathering in which suddenly, all resentments explode violently. And yes, of course, in a way, that too is multilateralism. But meanwhile time is running, and by continuing to move at a snail’s pace, we will wake up when it is too late (as if it weren’t already too late).

The elephant in the room nobody talks about
But there was an elephant in the room during that plenary, one we too often forget. Because this “everyone for themselves” has a clear cultural root, undeniably linked to our development model. COP30 was nothing more than the reflection of a predatory, colonial, individualistic system, focused solely on maximising profits, personal gain and vested interests. Different interests, sometimes opposing ones, but ones that no one wants to give up. It is the capitalist and ultra-liberal economy that pushes in this direction: each government is effectively mandated to do what benefits its own little microcosm.

And no, it is not maximalism or extremism to call out the economic system. The extremists are those who prefer to destroy the planet’s balance rather than give up their privileges. The only thing that truly matters to them. Until we change this system of values, we will not get out of this. That is why agonising over reforming COP procedures to overcome deadlock is perhaps pointless without a broader cultural reflection. Without that, we can only fall in line with the absolute shit show at the concluding plenary in Belem and tell ourselves clearly, once and for all: too many governments – excuse the bluntness — really don’t give a damn about the climate.

See, Il flop di Belém: la Cop30 è finita con un nulla di fatto