This week the 30th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), takes place in the Amazonian city of Belém, with China and India not attending with their leaders, and the U.S. skipping the meeting altogether (although, U.S. governors, mayors and other political authorities will be participating.)
Other world leaders will be absent as well, including the President of Mexico, Caludia Sheinbaum, an expert on environmental issues. The event is of great relevance considering it is returning to its roots, since the UNFCCC was signed in 1992 at the Rio Conference in Brazil. But the political context does not seem to favor urgent agreements needed to sort climate crisis out.
Current geopolitical tensions are harming COP30. Not only is Donald Trump a negationist on climate change and has decided to push for carbon energies, his stance on Jair Bolsonaro, former President of Brazil sentenced to over 27 years in prison after he was found guilty of attempting to use military force to overturn an election and plotting to assassinate current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has placed a lot of tension with the Government of Lula Da Silva. Brazil has been sanctioned with tariffs by Trump and the fact that the South American country is a very important member of the BRICS + Group where China and Russia are allies and prominent members is also a fact that bothers Washington.
Besides that, one may wonder why COP30 is important. To start with and following the commitments made at the 2015 Paris Agreement, countries are expected to bring to Brazil a national plan on greenhouse emissions. These commitments are to be revised every five years. Back in 2021, during the COP26 in Glasgow, they passed. But, countries are far from reaching the 1.5° C world’s temperature target of the Paris agreement and they have allowed temperatures to rise to 3° C. According to the scientific community this is very bad news. Take into consideration that by 2035, countries are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions near 60% which is why they insist on countries complying with the reduction targets during the current decade. Thus, the key issue in Brazil consists on pushing clean energies to the center of priorities in substitution of fossil fuels.
Brazil itself is a leader in the production of biofuels because of strategic policies over time. The South American country produces ethanol -derived from sugarcane- and biodiesel -made mainly of soybeans- and this has lowered its carbon footprint. These fuels are integrated into regulatory frameworks which allow for a very important energy transition, with second-generation ethanol and sustainable aviation fuel. Yet concerns remain about availability of land and crops that in other countries are destined to feed populations. Nevertheless the Brazilian experience deserves to be considered by the international community since it shows a convergence of policies, plans, programs and governmental initiatives; policies that favor a fuel energy transition and technological innovations. Yet the country has to deal with deforestation, a major contributor to greenhouse emissions.
Going back to COP30, it should be remembered that last year in Azerbaijan during COP29 where money issues were addressed, the flow of resources from the rich world to the developing world was subject to many disagreements. The money would come from public and private sources but politically speaking it is not a priority right now, when rich countries are dealing with increases to the military budget as requested by U.S. President Trump, then limiting money for other purposes, including the environment.
Speaking about the military, this is a sector that pollutes and damages the environment despite programs at many military bases to recover ecosystems and protect endangered species. The defense industry contributes to the emissions associated with military equipment production and operation: emissions resulting from the production of military equipment (from raw material extraction to final product delivery) and its operation by the armed forces today account for 70 % of the total, whereas the remaining 30% comes from military facilities and infrastructure. Military activities in the world account for an estimated 5. 5 % of global greenhouse gas emissions, a figure comparable to the total emissions of Russia, placing them as the fourth largest emitter if considered as a single country and just behind the U.S., China and India. Yet due to the secrecy that normally involves the military sector due ti national security concerns, it is not mandatory for countries to include the military in their greenhouse gas emission reductions. The military sector is fossil fuel intensive and the announced increases in the military budget will dramatically increase emissions.
Going on with COP30, Brazil has proposed a forest-saving fund which has found enthusiasm in European countries like Germany and Norway as potential contributors, but the U.S. and its strategic ally the United Kingdom say they would not support the initiative. With forest comes relevant issues such as the voices of indigenous populations. Another priority is the cutting of methane-responsible of a third of increases of greenhouse gas emissions- is a major issue. And to make things more complex there is a deadlock about who will be hosting COP31 next year. There are two bids: Australia and Turkey have expressed interest in being venues, and each would like to prevail over the other.
Both are countries of concern when it comes to the current environmental crisis. Australia is the largest exporter of coal in the world and one of the biggest natural gas exporters. Thus, Australia has one of the highest per capita emissions globally. On the Turkish side, renewable energies account for almost half of installed electricity capacity. Yet the country is behind the targets set for sun energy, and the persistence of coal power plants. Thus, in Brazil it is expected that Turkey is perceived as a responsible climate country to win the bid. Brazil of course had hoped the next venue could have had settled before the meeting in Belém. In case there is no consensus on the next venue, Bonn will be hosting COP31, something that, apparently, Germany does not want.
Berlin argues that preparing a host site within 12 months of the talks would stretch Germany’s rigid bureaucracy and that more time is needed. The thing is that even though Bonn is headquarters of the climate organization, is possible that Germany intends to avoid frictions with the Trump administration on the issue at a time when Washington wants more money going to the military budget.
The location of COPs rotates through five groups of countries. Turkey, Germany, the U.K. and Australia are all in the same group, which needs to arrive at a decision by consensus. Australia’s bid, which is being made in conjunction with Pacific Island nations, has been publicly supported by Germany, France and the U.K. The prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese wrote a letter to President Erdogan asking him to host in Turkey the leaders’ meetings where they make their speeches, whereas Australia would host the negotiations of key issues. Splitting the conference does not seem a good idea and many delegates have mentioned that two of the last COPs have taken place in Asia, at the United Arab Emirates and Azerbaijan and that other region should be considered to give it voice besides one corner of the world.
Thus, the fate of COP30 looks uncertain and besides the controversy over the next venue there is the need for global commitments on key issues to decrease world’s temperature and the enormous environmental risks that the planet is facing in the form of fires, droughts, heavy rains, hurricanes, landslides and other calamities that cost much more than environmental prevention, mitigation and adaptation measures.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
