By Francesca Merlo – Belém, Brazil
The halls of COP30 are empty, and as the final gavel fell, there was a sense that something essential had slipped away. What began with remarkable promise under Brazil’s presidency concluded instead with “disappointment, and, for many, the unsettling feeling of having watched the multilateral climate process take a step backwards”.
“It’s been my fifteenth COP,” says Professor John Sweeney, emeritus climatologist from Maynooth University in Ireland, “and this one followed very predictable lines.”
But this year’s conclusion, he stresses, is marked less by the expected frustrations and more by the collapse of ambitions many thought finally within reach.
A COP that promised much and delivered little
Sweeney explains that Brazil had laid significant groundwork ahead of the summit. Hosting the conference in the Amazon carried a symbolism and urgency that the world could not ignore. The presidency hoped to produce clear commitments on forest protection, fossil fuel phase-out, and finance for vulnerable nations. Yet, as negotiations stretched deep into the night and into the weekend, the final text emerged stripped of its strongest language.
“The big winner,” Sweeney says in an interview with Vatican News “, is sitting in Washington.” A meeting between the United States and Saudi Arabia, days before the final plenary, appeared to seal the fate of the communiqué: any mention of fossil fuels was removed. For the vast majority of nations pressing for decisive language on the root causes of climate change, it was a bitter defeat.
For the first time in 30 years of UN COPs, the White House had no official representation at the event in Belém. A decision that had a negative impact on the outcome of the Conference.
Outside, the conference venue had battled other disappointing, somewhat climate reflecting realities, such as flooding, leaks, and even fire – all symbolic interruptions that did not go unnoticed by observers.
A System at Breaking Point
At the heart of the stalemate lies the COP’s long-criticised rule of unanimity. “Every year,” Sweeney notes, “one or two countries can hold the entire world to ransom.” Attempts at procedural reform – weighted voting, minority representation models – are discussed, but always dismissed by the very countries that benefit from the paralysis.
Meanwhile, oil-producing states show no sign of shifting course. “As long as the revenue flows continue,” he says, “they will not change.” Even major developing emitters – India, Indonesia – remain determined to industrialise along the same fossil-fuelled pathways once used by today’s wealthy nations. At what point, then, does such self-interest become incompatible with global survival?
“You’re really addressing the question of the common good,” Sweeney answers. And too many countries, he warns, have lost sight of it.
Only two things, he believes, can shift the tide: enlightened leadership or catastrophe.
The lasting value and limits of COP
And yet, despite the frustration, the process continues. Why?
“Because,” Sweeney says, “COP is one of the few platforms where the smallest countries can address the largest as equals.” It remains, therefore, a vital space – especially for those already facing rising seas, failing crops, and intensifying storms.
But under its current structure, he warns, COP will not keep the world below 1.5°C. “That target will be exceeded.” The priority now, he insists, is to limit overshoot, come back down, and avoid sliding towards 2°C – where suffering and extreme events rise exponentially.
Still, he finds the faintest glimmer of hope in the rapid growth of renewable energy and in the moral awakening of ordinary people. These, he believes, may yet pressure political leaders whose vision has been narrowed by electoral cycles and vested interests.
A Call to Persevere
COP30 will not be remembered as a turning point, nor as the meeting that charted a path to a sustainable future. Instead, it may be remembered for missed opportunities: the roadmap that vanished from the text, the point of order unheard, the fire and the flood.
Yet, as Professor Sweeney reminds us, the work goes on. Not because the process is perfect, but because the world’s most vulnerable nations need a place where their voices can still be heard.
And in that fragile, imperfect gathering of nations, there remains, however faintly, the possibility of a common hope. – Vatican News
