An open door to ecocide is the stark conclusion when adding up all the measures that were postponed or not taken at COP30. The gap between what’s needed to halt further global warming and climate disruption, and what countries actually agreed to do, keeps widening. And it grows even further because many of the promises that were made are not being fulfilled — as history keeps showing.
Many media outlets tried to highlight a positive aspect of the Belém agreement, even though it’s widely described as weak. Nowhere, however, is the death sentence acknowledged that this deal effectively delivers for millions more climate victims — people who will suffer and die because action was delayed, and because fossil fuels were left untouched. It’s akin to supplying weapons to perpetrators of genocide.
A follow-up meeting has been announced to discuss phasing out fossil fuels with a small group of countries; more talk when the world needs action. Belém reflected today’s global power balance: Europe, once a green frontrunner, has been pushed to the sidelines — even with its watered-down climate ambitions — while the absent United States had its interests defended by Saudi Arabia, and the BRICS bloc, of which Brazil is a leading member (and which Saudi Arabia is set to join), supporting its position.
In short, Belém will be remembered more for what it didn’t achieve:
- no deal to phase out fossil fuels,
- no binding pact to stop deforestation,
- no mention of critical raw materials.
The much-needed increase in climate adaptation funds was postponed to 2035. Experience shows, however, that such funds are rarely paid out in full — and that more than half of what is delivered comes in the form of loans, pushing poorer nations further into debt.
Those who want to dig into the official UN texts can find them on the COP30 website.
The Outcome: Widely Seen as “Too Weak”
NGOs and Climate Activists
Environmental groups and activists call the agreement weak, mainly because it lacks a clear commitment to phase out fossil fuels — despite broad support from many countries and businesses for such a roadmap.
At the same time, some NGOs acknowledge a few “hard but limited” wins, such as the Just Transition mechanism, a significant scale-up of adaptation finance, and greater attention to forests and Indigenous rights — the result of years of pressure from civil society.
Reactions from Countries and the UN
Countries like India, Brazil, South Africa, and China described the agreement as “meaningful” or even a “success,” given the complex geopolitical backdrop and the U.S. absence at a high level.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres and the UN climate chief stressed that important progress was made (notably on finance and adaptation), but that a significant gap remains between COP30’s pledges and what science says is necessary to keep the 1.5°C goal alive.
Business and Finance Sector
Business networks such as the We Mean Business Coalition said the official outcomes “fall far short” of the ambition required and fail to match the pace of change already underway in the real economy, where clean energy is expanding fast.
Some companies and investors did note positive signs in the tripling of adaptation funding and new funds for forests and infrastructure, but complained about the lack of a clear, predictable pathway away from fossil fuels — the kind of certainty needed for investment decisions.
Indigenous Peoples and Social Movements
Indigenous leaders welcomed the greater visibility and role of Indigenous communities in forest and land-rights discussions compared with previous COPs, but said COP30 fell short of being the promised “Indigenous COP.” Many communities remain excluded from the formal talks, and land rights remain weakly protected. Broader social coalitions and climate networks argued that real progress comes from mass mobilization — marches, protests against fossil fuels and deforestation — while COP30 delivered only “small steps” when “giant leaps” are urgently needed, especially for frontline communities.
Media and General Analysis
Major international outlets described the deal as “modest” or “disappointing”: useful for boosting climate and adaptation finance, but a missed opportunity to take the historic step toward a binding global fossil fuel phase-out. The prevailing narrative is that COP30 advanced the implementation and finance agenda, but politically fell short of what’s needed to keep the 1.5°C target within credible reach.
