Good afternoon from New Economy Brief.
World leaders gathered in Belém, Brazil, during November for COP30 – the 30th UN climate talks. As ever the event was contested, with heated debates about phasing out fossil fuels, financing climate adaptation and the presence of lobbyists from polluting industries. Indigenous activists and their allies staged demonstrations, negotiations went down to the wire and verdicts on the outcome have been mixed, to say the least.
This week’s New Economy Brief unpacks what happened at COP30 and what it means for progress on climate change.
Thirty years of talks
COP30 is the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is the centrepiece of the annual UN climate negotiations, bringing together countries that signed the UNFCCC at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to review and progress collective efforts to address climate change.
An undercurrent throughout was the USA’s continued absence. This gave other states and regional groupings more space to influence proceedings. Some commentators referred to the EU’s power waning and the BASIC bloc – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – growing in stature.
This was meant to be the “implementation COP” – where previously agreed rules and frameworks would be put into practice. Yet there was no final agreement on transitioning away from fossil fuels, nor on ending deforestation. Critics decried the watered-down references to food systems and agriculture. And countries’ new climate plans would reduce global emissions by just 12% by 2035 – far short of the 55% required to limit warming to 1.5°C.
The big issues in Brazil
Show us the money! Climate finance – especially support for adaptation – was one of Belém’s defining issues. Global South countries, civil society and climate activists have long called on rich countries to pay to support those most impacted by climate change. This isn’t just about financing resilience and preparedness. Many lower-income countries and voices from the Global South see climate finance as a way to repay climate debt and compensate for the harm climate change has already done. They note that it results directly from centuries of fossil-fuel driven growth and development by rich nations which have exceeded their fair share of the carbon budget – the maximum amount we can cumulatively emit without causing dangerous warming.
Financing adaptation. This year’s negotiations followed last year’s stalled COP29 talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, and before COP30 began Brazil published its Baku to Belém roadmap, aiming to raise $1.3 trillion in climate finance by 2035.
One of the summit’s biggest outcomes was an agreed set of 59 indicators for countries to measure progress on adaptation – a Paris Agreement commitment to strengthen climate resilience. This is the first shared framework for measuring resilience. Delegates also tripled adaptation finance – a long-standing call from lower-income nations and campaigners. To date, a large bulk of climate finance has flowed toward mitigation (actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), rather than building resilience to impacts that are already baked in.
Not so simple. While the headlines focused on the climate finance increases and adaptation targets, the detail drew sharp criticism from experts and civil society. The final agreement pushed back the deadline for tripling adaptation finance to 2035 from the proposed 2030. Moreover, technicalities around the baseline amount to be trebled mean it’s uncertain what the 2035 target actually means, and holding countries to it may be difficult.
Fossil fuel contention. There was still no agreement on how to end fossil fuel use. A coalition of countries including climate-vulnerable states and Latin American and European governments called for a global phase out. But opposition from oil and gas producers including Saudi Arabia and Russia stymied any official or binding roadmap in the final agreement. The large number of fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance also raised eyebrows – some 1,600 according to Global Witness.
Even so, groundwork was laid for further action, with the Brazilian hosts committing to developing voluntary roadmaps on a just transition away from fossil fuels. Colombia and the Netherlands will also attempt further progress with a follow-up conference for a ‘coalition of the willing’ next spring.
Keep the trees in the ground. That’s what a Brazilian-led proposal – the Tropical Forests Forever Facility – hopes to do. It seeks to reward countries for protecting forests and provide an incentive for nations with high deforestation rates to make positive progress to unlock the funding. It also aims to provide more reliable finance than project-by-project models can. It sits within a bigger push for agreement to stop deforestation by 2030, and for richer nations to provide significant financial resources for forest protection. France, Norway and Germany have already pledged funds, alongside Brazil and Indonesia. The UK and China opted out, but may follow in 2026. The UK and Starmer have been criticised for abdicating leadership on climate and nature, and for burning diplomatic capital with a Brazilian government it had previously courted as a close partner on these issues.
What’s the big picture?
The Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil – a major national body representing indigenous people in the country – says COP30 can’t be considered a success without deforestation or fossil fuel phaseout in the official text.
The Brazilian presidency stressed the implementation role of COP30. However, despite new climate action plans and progress in many areas like indigenous land rights, big questions remain unanswered. Phasing out fossil fuels and stopping deforestation are critical issues that require rapid agreement to avoid severe, likely irreversible repercussions. Mohamed Adow of Power Shift Africa said: “COP30 kept the process alive — but process alone will not cool the planet. Roadmaps and workplans will mean nothing unless they now translate into real finance and real action for the countries bearing the brunt of the crisis.”
Climate Action Network International – a coalition of 1,800 organisations – celebrated the adoption of the Belém Action Mechanism. Known as “Bam!”, it requires countries to take concrete steps toward a just transition. Additionally, it calls for international coordination so everyone can see what actions are being taken where and who they affect. It’s hoped the mechanism will advance ambition on rights-based climate action and open the door for more grant-based climate finance.
Only a year until the COP goes again
Questions remain about the future of UN climate talks. Ahead of Belém, a group of international experts suggested the slow pace and consensus-seeking nature of the COP process was “no longer fit for purpose.” Harjeet Singh from the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative said we “can’t discard [COP] entirely”, instead calling for change and “retrofitting” of the process.
Next year’s talks are an awkward compromise, with Turkey hosting and Australia overseeing the process, breaking a deadlock on who would lead the next conference. With so many big issues on the table – from progressing COP30’s climate finance agreements to moving towards implementing the Global Goal on Adaptation – this kind of squabbling may not bode well. But multilateral engagement is always messy, and in today’s geopolitically riven world, perhaps we should take solace in knowing that the process to address this most global of problems is at least trundling on.
A feminist budget? The Women’s Budget Group has analysed the Chancellor’s 2025 Budget, focusing on its impact on women. They recognise some constructive steps to tackle the cost of living crisis, like raising the minimum wage for low-paid workers, who are often women. They also celebrate the end of the two-child limit in Universal Credit, although the overall benefit cap remains, which will reduce the benefit for some of the lowest-income households. The authors think plans to “rebuild the economy” fall short, and that more ambitious tax reform could have raised greater revenue in a more progressive way.
Rights-based analysis of the budget. Just Fair looks at what the Autumn Budget means for advancing economic, social and cultural rights in the UK. It covers three policy areas – tax, social security and the national minimum wage. The analysis includes the mansion tax, lifting of the two-child limit, arguing that economic policy should be designed to support human rights, not override them.
Digital Services Tax. One of the less-talked-about items from Rachel Reeves’ Budget was the continuation of the UK’s Digital Services Tax, despite concern among civil society and campaigners that it may be scrapped under intense pressure from the US administration and tech lobbyists. A Parliamentary review of the tax found it to be extremely effective with minimal operational costs and almost no avoidance or fraud. Caitlin Boswell from Tax Justice UK commented on the story in The Register.
Fiscal devolution. A new report from The Fairness Foundation examines the UK’s deep regional inequality, and what could be done about it. It argues that the highly centralised fiscal system bears much of the blame, making the case for further devolution of tax and spending powers to cities and regions. This could help distribute wealth more equitably and improve living standards while helping the government tell a story about fairness and opportunity for everyone, wherever they live.
Locked out of housing. New research released by Crisis shows that people living in poverty in England are being denied access to social housing because of low incomes. The report finds that housing associations are imposing strict criteria on applicants for social housing, viewing those receiving benefits or on low incomes as too risky.
