COP30 is being held under the sign of Self-Deception. It will approve a document on the Tropical Forest Fund, led by Brazil, whose funding sources remain uncertain. It will approve a declaration linking climate action to the fight against poverty. By empty consensus, the demagogic text on “environmental racism” that Lula will present for his identity parade will be approved. Less likely is the publication of a final summit declaration addressing the failure of the goals of the Paris Agreement (2015).
- COP 30: Brazil is betting on obtaining the participation of the BRICS and G7 countries in the Forest Fund
Legal basis for the COPs The Paris Agreement set the goal of preventing the increase in global average temperature beyond 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels and, ideally, avoiding exceeding the 1.5°C mark. On the available evidence, the final declaration will choose to conceal the finding that even the most modest target will not be achieved. The nations gathered in Bethlehem look away from the charts that tell the harsh truth.
- Coup plot: The first panel unanimously rejected Bolsonaro’s appeal and maintained his 27-year prison sentence
Private simulations are not controversial, but are official models produced by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The 1.5°C target has expired: this mark will be exceeded within the next 10 years. Even if all national emissions reduction targets are strictly met, which is unlikely, the probability of achieving the 2°C target is only 25%. The planet is rapidly moving toward a temperature rise of between two and three degrees Celsius.
The reason is greenhouse gas emissions – in other words, the slow pace of the energy transition. Emissions are currently at a historic peak, approaching 60 billion tons of carbon dioxide. On the current trajectory, it will fall to 55 gigatonnes in 2035 and, if national targets are met, to just under 50 gigatonnes. But a 1.5°C target would require 25 gigatonnes and a 2°C target would require 35 gigatonnes.
The energy transition faces the weight of inertia of fossil fuel-based economic structures built by the industrial revolution. At the forefront are European countries, which have reduced their emissions radically, but at insufficient levels. Russia, where emissions continue to rise, is the negative exception.
The United States is reducing its emissions, but at a very slow pace, thanks to regional market dynamics. China has reached its peak and is set to begin reducing in the coming years, while India is rapidly increasing its emissions, negating the expected gains from Chinese investments in clean sources.
Hopes for a rapid global energy transition were never based on realistic calculations. Replacing carbon is expensive. In rich countries, budgets face the challenge of aging populations – and it is no coincidence that green parties fail in elections. The European Union was only able to agree to a risky update to its emissions reduction commitment on the eve of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30). In poor countries, societies prioritize combating current poverty over future global thermal targets.
The geopolitical scenario does not help. Real wars, in Europe and the Middle East, divert investments into the arms industry. Trump’s “tariff war” is narrowing the scope of diplomatic cooperation. Removing US emissions targets increases projections of global average temperatures by 0.1°C.
The environmental movement has closed itself in the cave of fundamentalism. The option of accelerating investment in nuclear plants, and adding them to the arsenal of clean sources, did not take off in the West due to the opposition of the “Greens”. Bill Gates published an article proposing to redirect investments towards poverty reduction as a means of adapting to climate change. His well-thought-out arguments were relentlessly bombarded by the Greens. But as usual, activists are promoting acts of holy indignation at government inaction.
As we go by the drawings, COP 30 will end without confronting the political impasse highlighted by UNEP, which would move environmental diplomacy into a parallel universe of reality denial. Instead of making a responsible declaration admitting failure, while reviewing goals and strategies, Belem will claim victory.
About The Author
