Climate Politics and Concerns in the Aftermath of COP30

December 2, 2025
Santiago Jimenez

From November 10-21, the United Nations held its 30th climate change conference, the Conference of the Parties (COP30) in Belém, Brazil. Across the conference’s duration, and in its aftermath, much was done… and much was not.

The Good

The United Nations expedited more funding for the implementation of the Paris agreement, with the hopes of developing a stronger pivot to renewable and green energy sources as an alternative to current fossil-fueled energy, which is harmful to the environment. The project seeks to push out $1.3 trillion by 2030 and put the money towards a series of initiatives. First, it hopes to aid in the ability to adapt to the harms of climate change, allowing countries to avoid adverse suffering. Second, it seeks to modify operationalisation and replenishment cycles, working not just to modify how much money is being invested or where the money is going, but also to fundamentally change the internal logistics of managing finances, with a hope to streamline climate progress. Finally, the summit seeks to limit disinformation regarding the climate and to begin new initiatives. Ultimately, the climate conference had several net benefits and paved new pathways towards a future where everyone can enjoy a better climate.

The Bad

It is sad to note the significant shortcomings of the recent climate summit. First, there was internal conflict seeping through the entire exchange. The summit, being hosted in Brazil, was originally met with support from President Lula; however, as time went on, conflict arose between the leader of Brazil and the leader of the summit, André Corrêa do Lago. The two had different visions on what the conference ought to achieve, with Lula’s vision heavily criticized by Lago for being outlandish and unrealistic. To attempt to resolve this conflict, there was an attempt to host an inter-country conversation regarding what the meeting would look like, only for such attempts to once again result in disputes between the attendees. Additionally, many countries most in need of the services COP30 seeks to achieve, those being island states, impoverished states, etc, found themselves in awe when they were unable to fully engage in the meeting, as the states couldn’t afford to pay the inflated lodging rates of the region. Those who most needed to be a part of the climate discussion were locked out of it by a paywall. Furthermore, the meeting has been criticized for being largely performative, with many worrying about the minimal implications the meeting will have on real local and international politics. There is fear that the conversations occurring are too little too late. Ultimately, this vision isn’t an isolated opinion; it is the consensus. COP30 was unable to set a standard that would be capable of resolving the impending catastrophe that is climate change. We are nearing the dangerous 1.5 degrees Celsius figure the climate agreement warns of, yet not putting in place legislation that can meaningfully prevent us from reaching such a milestone.

Reflection

In reality, no meeting is good, and no meeting is bad. The COP30 climate summit had both its shortcomings and its upsides, and some climate discussion is preferable to none. So, although the meeting ultimately comes up short in combating the existential crisis we face today, it is still a step in the right direction.