Today it is no longer necessary to start a discussion on the issue of pointing out the most recent climate catastrophes to highlight the existence of the threat; There is global consensus, supported by science, regarding the seriousness of the situation. The few groups that disagree, however powerful they may be, have short-term interests in ignoring the problem, as we will see later.
Nor is there disagreement over the causes of warming — emissions — or even over the necessary solution — known as “net zero.”
This is evident, but it is worth emphasizing that problems that present such universal agreement regarding these three basic aspects: their existence, their causes and their solution are rare. All this notwithstanding, there are well-founded reasons for great concern (almost an understatement) regarding the possibilities of effectively limiting warming to 1.5ºC or 2ºC, preserving good conditions for human life on the planet.
We owe this precisely to the fact that warming is global, requiring global coordination to overcome it. For more than 30 years, this understanding has been sought in various international forums, the most representative of which is the annual meeting of the . The most recent of them, in , in Azerbaijan, does not bode well, although there are gaps through which some light can be seen.
In Baku, it became clear that the solution to global warming does not have a powerful adversary. With the presence of 1,700 lobbyists and the uncompromising actions of Saudi Arabia and Russia, the sector managed not only to avoid including any reference to the next steps in the “transition away from fossil fuels” but even to replace the very repetition of this with an indirect reference. expression, which was so celebrated at the end of the . Far from being just a semantic issue, the change in the text illustrates, if not a setback, at least a delay in the election to reduce the burning of fossil fuels as the main measure to combat warming.
There were even more concrete reasons for frustration with COP29. Designated as the Finance COP, the meeting was expected to define the annual value of the contribution from rich countries to developing countries, to finance their energy transition. This definition was only announced during the extension of the meeting, which was seriously threatened with ending without an agreement. In the end, emerging nations agreed on an annual value of US$300 billion, much lower than the US$1.3 trillion considered necessary by specialized analysts. The idea prevailed that this bad agreement would be preferable to reaching , without any agreement and facing the bloc developed under the influence of the USA.
Those who consider the sum of US$ 1.3 trillion per year to be very high should remember that the value represents around 1.5% of the aggregate GDP of the 20 richest nations.
Would you invest 1.5% of your income annually if it was necessary to prevent the biggest problem in front of you?
But it wasn’t all bad news in Baku. The meeting began with the long-awaited regulation of article 6. Let me explain: in , the various nations committed to reducing their emissions to zero. Article 6 allows these nations to use in their accounting reductions obtained by other countries, through the negotiation of “carbon credits”. This will allow countries that exceed their commitment to trade the surplus with countries that are falling short of their targets.
For Brazil, which has a clean, scalable energy matrix and an enormous potential for capturing carbon in its forests and degraded areas, this represents the possibility of obtaining resources precisely for the preservation of this threatened nature, whose deforestation is today our main source of emissions. This regulation has been pending since 2015 due to strong opposition from sectors of global environmentalism to offsetting emissions; its implementation is a victory for the diplomacy of tropical countries.
In a particularly happy conjunction of events, the regulation of article 6 occurs simultaneously with the approval by Congress of , creating the best conditions ever achieved for the development of this market.
There were also positive signs coming from China, which could reach the inflection point in its emissions in 2025, five years before its commitment. Reports in international newspapers report that, during the tense negotiations that preceded the final announcement, the country indicated favorably to contribute and expand the US$300 billion package, if other countries did so too (which did not happen). Everything suggests that China should adopt a more active stance on climate issues, even to contrast with the more retrograde orientation that will certainly be adopted by Trump’s USA.
Finally, reading the international press also shows the high regard in which our main negotiators — and André Correa do Lago — were held by their peers, as a result of their outstanding performance in the negotiations. Both in the matter of article 6 and in the final discussions, his actions were considered relevant to the achievement of the agreements.
It’s great to know that we have a top-notch team, as there is a lot to be done until COP30, in Belém, in November 2025. On the financial front, the US$300 billion needs to be made viable and efforts must be made to expand the volume; there are a series of measures necessary for the implementation of business under article 6, fundamental for the preservation of the forest; and great skill and articulation will be required to reintroduce the focus on the “transitional way”, a term that designates the progressive and accelerated replacement of fossil fuels.
We are late for the designation of the COP30 President and Champion, who will be fundamental to achieving the above objectives. And it’s worth remembering that we still await the attribution of a climate authority that can centralize all discussions and measures related to the topic.
It is past time to recognize the urgency of the climate issue.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
