The 30th annual meeting of the signatory countries to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the first to be held in the Amazon, opened yesterday in Belém. Comments are dominated by scepticism from those who oppose it, and a sense of discouragement among those who have seen insufficient results for decades and are approaching a point of no return. However, it is counterproductive to succumb to pessimism.

Compared to 10 years ago, we have made progress. Not enough, but progress nonetheless. Ten years ago, the planet was on a trajectory for a catastrophic temperature increase of 4°C compared to pre-industrial levels. Today, we are between 2.3°C and 2.8°C. We still have a long way to go, but there has been tangible progress: the share of renewables in total global electricity generation grew from 23% in 2015 to 28% in 2021 and exceeded 30% in 2024. Investment in renewables is now roughly double that in fossil fuels, which remains very high at 2 trillion dollars.

The EU has reduced emissions by 37% since 1990 while its GDP has grown by 68%. This puts it more or less on track to meet its target of reducing emissions by 55% by 2030, with an increasingly 'circular' economy. Mobility is also changing; ten years ago, there were just over a million electric cars. Today, there are over 30 million — five times more than in 2018.

Compared to ten years ago, batteries cost 90% less and are much more efficient and recyclable. In many countries, electric vehicles are already competitive with those with traditional engines. Batteries and storage will soon solve the problem of the intermittent nature of renewable energy, removing the need to invest in gas and nuclear power as a permanent transition solution. Since 2015, the area of protected land and sea has also increased steadily, with more than a quarter of the land and almost a fifth of the seas now protected.

Overall, the world has slowed the growth of global emissions, made solar energy accessible, and begun to reverse the curve of Amazonian deforestation. Above all, the technologies are in place and new models and solutions are emerging daily. Millions of people — local administrators, universities, farmers, businesses, and young and old individuals — are already driving change.

At COP30 in Belém, negotiators will have to make some important decisions now that the entire framework of rules set out in the Paris Agreement is in place: defining new emission reduction commitments that realistically allow us to stay on track for the +1.5 °C target; unlocking adequate climate finance for vulnerable countries, giving substance to the 'just transition' mechanism and financing climate damage already underway.

However, there is no shortage of disturbing data. The UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2025 makes for grim reading: two-thirds of countries either did not make it in time to be included in the report — the EU being one such example — or have not yet updated their plans. Even among those that did submit plans, the improvements are modest. Even if we were to fully implement the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), we would still be approaching a temperature increase of +2.3–2.5 °C by the end of the century. Last year, the worst-case scenario indicated an increase of 2.6°C; this improvement is so marginal that it cannot be considered progress. To make matters worse, the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which Trump desired in his first year in office, accounts for an additional 0.1°C. This may seem insignificant, but every tenth of a degree corresponds to thousands of lives and tonnes of CO₂.

Meanwhile, the Global Oil and Gas Exit List, compiled by a coalition of NGOs, shows that 96% of the world's fossil fuel companies are expanding production. Extraction is expected to increase by 33% compared to 2021, despite the International Energy Agency making it clear that no new fields are required. The worst offenders include Qatar Energy, Saudi Aramco, Adnoc, Gazprom and ExxonMobil, with Eni ranking thirteenth. Even more striking is the fact that, between 2023 and 2025, investment in fossil fuels will exceed what has been promised to the 'loss and damage' fund by tens of times. This fund is designed to compensate poor countries affected by extreme weather events.

Ten years after the Paris Agreement, an unexpected fact is also emerging. In Belém, it seems that the so-called West no longer has the ambition to exercise true climate leadership. China, India, Brazil and many other countries in the Global South are taking the initiative on their own terms. This will also have consequences for transparency, the strength of the multilateral process, and the scope for civil society participation.

In particular, China has presented a new NDC for the first time that includes an absolute reduction in emissions compared to the peak year. This is a significant, if insufficient, change of pace, and stands in stark contrast to the United States' violent denialism. Not only has the United States opted out, it is also actively boycotting every possible step forward. This was evident in Trump's explicit threats to block the system of rules agreed in April to decarbonise fleets and reduce ship pollution, through taxes and incentives.

As for Brazil, the host of COP30, despite the slogans and the undeniable decrease in deforestation since Lula's return (-46% in two years), as well as the rapid development of renewable energy sources, it is sending contradictory messages. In a passionate speech, Lula talks about a 'summit of truth' and relaunches the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, which aims to mobilise $125 billion to reward those who protect tropical forests. France, Germany and Norway have already announced a joint contribution of $2.5 billion for the Congo forest to this facility. He also promoted the Belém Declaration 'on hunger, poverty and people-centred climate action', which aims to support small-scale agricultural producers and establish the right to healthy food as a pillar of the just transition. This is important in a context where the agricultural sector accounts for one third of global emissions. However, the Brazilian government and parliament support agribusiness and heavy road infrastructure in the Amazon. They have obtained authorisation to extract oil and gas, including from a highly sensitive area in the Foz do Amazonas basin. They have set themselves the goal of becoming one of the top five oil-producing countries within a few years, and they have recently joined OPEC. According to Lula, all of this is in order to finance the transition.

Meanwhile, Europe, the former climate leader, has arrived in Belém late and divided. Nevertheless, it should be emphasised that Europe remains the region of the world with the most ambitious targets and the largest contributor to climate finance. The recently agreed updated version of the climate law provides for a nominal 90% reduction in net emissions by 2040, but only 85% of this will be domestic, with the remainder entrusted to projects in third countries. The possibility of renegotiating targets every two years, including on the basis of economic conditions, risks undermining the credibility and confidence of investors and businesses. Furthermore, the reluctance of an increasing number of governments to be bound by long-term targets creates uncertainty regarding their true intentions.

Ultimately, the stark contrast between the reality of climate change, the scientific evidence, the available solutions, public concern, and the entrenched position of governments with fossil fuel companies firmly behind them is striking. The result is that we are slowing down when we should be speeding up.

Conversely, an environmentally friendly political proposal can be successful. In New York, for example, Zohran Mamdani was elected by focusing on mobilising people and proposing accessible, sustainable policies for the city. This included a public housing plan, 500 schools with solar panels, 50 climate shelters, free buses and 15,000 new green jobs. He built his campaign from the ground up with the help of 90,000 volunteers and over 1.6 million door-to-door contacts. In New Jersey, 'moderate' Democrat Mikie Sherrill countered the Republicans' anti-wind propaganda by linking clean energy with employment and price stability. In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger defeated the right's anti-environmental policies with her proposals on renewables and sustainable agriculture. In Ireland, the newly elected president, Catherine Connolly, described the climate crisis as 'the moral challenge of our time', linking social and environmental justice.

These experiences teach us that climate policy is not a luxury, but an integral part of everyday life: school, home, work, food, health and clean air. It requires consensus, widespread mobilisation and reliable data. ‘Climate and quality of life are not two different issues; they are one and the same,’ reminds Mamdani.

This is the way to go, whatever happens in Belém.