The 30th meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC (COP30) is drawing to a close in Belém, Brazil. The summit has been billed as the ‘COP of action’, aiming to move beyond ambition-setting into implementation. But the agenda has been fraught, and major divides remain among countries on finance, adaptation, and the role of fossil fuels. 

The ‘fossil fuels’ fight: inclusion, exclusion, and what it means

From early on, ‘fossil fuels’ which refers to oil, gas and coal, have been centre stage in the negotiations. At the opening, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called explicitly for a roadmap to ‘overcome dependence on fossil fuels’.

Civil society groups, like 350.org, flagged strong momentum within days of the summit opening, with support for a ‘Transition Away from Fossil Fuels (TAFF) Roadmap’. But there has been strong resistance too, notably from major fossil-fuel producing and consuming countries. 

The draft text released around Tuesday 18 November contained the phrase ‘transition away from ‘fossil fuels’ and referred to a possible ‘roadmap’, with that more than 80 countries backing a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. The lates draft text issued early on Friday 21 November, omitted any mention of ‘fossil fuels’ or a fossil-fuel transition ‘roadmap’. This omission has triggered backlash from at least 29 countries (including many European and island states) who set the roadmap inclusion as a ‘red line’.

The fact that the inclusion of ‘fossil fuels’ is important because burning fossil fuels remains the primary source of human-driven CO₂ emissions. The failure to mention them by name is seen by many as a sign of the limits of political will, especially when major producers have vested interests. Conversely, the initial push to include a roadmap signals that many countries see the writing on the wall, that is you cannot deliver the goals of the Paris Agreement without addressing fossil fuels directly. 

In short, the language battle is a proxy for bigger battles about energy systems, equity (who pays, who shifts first), and global power relations.

Where there’s been headway at COP30

There are a number of positive steps forward and constructive shifts:

• The framing of COP30 has shifted more clearly toward implementation rather than just new promises, meaning the conversations are shifting.
• The finance and adaptation dimensions are getting more attention. For example, developing countries stressing not just emissions but also adaptation and loss and damage.
• The momentum for a fossil-fuel transition roadmap shows that the issue is increasingly ‘on the table’ rather than avoided.
• The hosting of COP30 in the Amazon region and the prominence of indigenous and forest-linked voices add moral weight to the proceedings.

Where the sticking points remain

Some big obstacles remain, including:

• Finance: Developing countries continue to call for much stronger commitments on climate finance, adaptation funding, and ‘loss and damage’ support. The funds promised to date are seen as inadequate.
• Ambition verses feasibility: Many national climate-plans (NDCs) remain weak and the gap to stay on a 1.5 °C path is still wide. The fossil fuel phase‐out roadmap can be seen as one way to increase ambition, yet its current exclusion suggests consensus is lacking.
• Producers verses consumers divide: Countries that rely heavily on fossil fuel exports or usage (oil/gas producers, large consumers) are wary of binding commitments that they see as threatening their economic models. 

The fire at COP30 and its potential impact

On Thursday (20 November), a fire broke out one of the pavilions in the Blue Zone portion of the venue. While no major injuries were reported, the fire forced a full evacuation of the zone, disrupted sessions for over six hours, and injected uncertainty into already fraught scheduling. 

The evacuation and subsequent safety checks mean that critical negotiating windows were lost and when time is tight, that matters. Also the negotiations thrive on momentum, and interruptions can break flows, reduce informal side-talks, slow drafting of texts.

With the summit due to wrap up imminently, any lost time tightens the margin for resolving the hardest issues. Some negotiators are already signalling that the texts may spill over beyond the scheduled close.

In conclusion

COP30 stands at a crossroads. On one hand, there is real momentum, a growing coalition of countries talking seriously about how to shift beyond fossil fuels. On the other hand, the omission of strong fossil-fuel language in the latest draft text is a major blow for ambition, and deep divides remain on finance, equity and energy system change.

As the clock ticks, the question is: will COP30 deliver enough to credibly move the needle and live up to its billing as the ‘COP of action’.

Explore more COP30 updates from RMetS