Events in Belém revisits achievements such as the Paris treaty, but comes up against unfulfilled promises
On Monday (10), it became the center of global climate discussions with the start of the 30th Conference of the Parties (), which runs until November 21. Leaders from almost 200 countries, scientists and activists come together with the mission of accelerating the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening adaptation to climate change.
In its 30-year history, the COP has recorded some important consensuses and advances, which ended up being overshadowed by failures and unfulfilled promises.
The journey began in Berlin, 1995, at COP1, where negotiations began for specific emission reduction targets for developed countries. Since then, climate diplomacy has collected important milestones, but also a series of frustrations that feed the narrative about its true effectiveness.
The advances
O The first major achievement of climate negotiations was the Kyoto Protocol, signed at COP3 in 1997. It was the first agreement to establish legally binding emissions reduction targets for industrialized nations, providing for an average cut of 5.2% compared to 1990 levels. Although considered a fundamental step, its impact was limited by the non-ratification of , one of the largest global emitters.
The most significant advance came almost two decades later, at COP21, in 2015: the Paris Agreement. Seen as the greatest achievement of climate diplomacy, the treaty united 195 countries in a common effort to keep global warming “well below 2°C”, with efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Its main innovation was the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) system.in which each country, including developing ones, sets its own emissions reduction targets.
More recently, the Glasgow Climate Pact, at COP26 (2021), achieved a symbolic advance by being the first COP final document to explicitly mention the need to reduce the use of fossil fuelsalthough the language has been softened from “eliminate” to “phase down.”
At COP27 in Egypt, a request from the most vulnerable nations was met with the creation of the Loss and Damage Fund. The mechanism was designed to provide financial assistance to countries suffering the most severe impacts of climate disasterssuch as droughts and floods, recognizing the historical responsibility of the nations that emit the most pollutants.
Then President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff signs the agreement at the signing ceremony of the Paris Agreement on climate change
Unfulfilled promises
Despite the agreements signed, the history of COPs is marked by a gap between what is promised and what is implemented. The most emblematic and unfulfilled promise was made at COP15, in Copenhagen (2009): developed countries have committed to mobilizing US$100 billion per year from 2020 to support developing nations in combating the climate crisis.
The data also exposes collective failure. Since the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, global greenhouse gas emissions have not stopped growing. Its own reports warn that, even with the current commitments of the Paris Agreement, the world is heading towards warming of 2.5°C to 2.9°C by the end of the century.
The governance structure of COPs is often highlighted as a fundamental weakness. For João Alfredo Lopes Nyegray, professor of the International Business course and Coordinator of the International Business Observatory at the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPR), the spectacularization of these events compromised their effectiveness. “In thirty editions, the COPs went from being technical tables to becoming mega-events. Media amplification brought public pressure, […] but it also transformed the conference into an ecosystem of showcases: ‘palliative’ announcements for the photo, vague commitments and a carnival of parallel panels that barely interfere with the final lyrics”evaluates.
João Alfredo Lopes Nyegray, professor of International Business and Coordinator of the PUCPR International Business Observatory
According to him, the current model is out of stock. All Conference decisions require consensus among all countries, which often leads to agreements with diluted language: “The current model (consensus between almost 200 countries + voluntary NDCs) was useful to universalize the conversation, but is exhausted to deliver the speed and scale required. Total consensus becomes, in practice, veto power for the less ambitious; voluntarism without the cost of non-compliance is an invitation to strategic procrastination”, he says.
Crucial issues, such as the phase-out of fossil fuels, remain taboo in negotiations, often blocked by oil and gas producing countries.
For scientist and climatologist Carlos Nobre, the debate needs to be updated with the reality of the data, which indicate that the 1.5°C target has already been practically lost. “The science is now clear and leaves no doubt: we will permanently reach 1.5°C of warming in the next 5 to 10 years (maximum by 2035). Therefore, saying that it is possible to keep the temperature below 1.5°C is no longer what science indicates“, he states.
Scientist and climatologist Carlos Nobre
Faced with this new scenario, Nobre defends two main actions. The first is “Dramatically accelerate emissions reduction“, with average cuts of at least 5% per year across all countries. The second, which becomes essential, is the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. “The most important is the large-scale restoration of biomes, mainly tropical forests. With these measures, the temperature will still exceed 1.5°C, and could reach 1.7°C, but The objective is not to let it reach 2°C in 2050“, projects the climatologist.
COP30: between hope and skepticism
The success or failure of the meeting in Belém will not only be measured by the documents signed, but by practical changes. For Brazil, the conference is a big bet: the chance to consolidate itself as an environmental leader, but also to expose its own contradictions on the global stage.
João Alfredo Lopes Nyegray directly criticizes this ambiguity: “By choosing Belém and building a choreography of ‘green leadership’ while pushing for oil in the Equatorial Margin, the government has become a case study of how spectacularization undermines credibility. […] Anyone who believes in climate science must reject this kind of ambiguity — not because it is ‘anti-growth’, but because it is anti-realistic: the carbon arithmetic doesn’t add up.”
