There's been plenty of negative responses to COP summits of years past and this year is no different. Climate skeptics believe it's setting a false and often sinister agenda. Climate activists say it's compromised and elitist. 

The two week conference has unveiled new plans and reports progress in bending the emissions curve away from the critical 2°C mark. But when thousands of people most directly connected to the climate crisis are shut out of the conversation we have to ask: should we take the COP 30 summit seriously? 

Host nation Brazil has set out three main goals for COP30: reinforcing multilateralism and cooperation, connecting climate change to individuals and the economy, and accelerating implementation.

..is the Avenida Liberdade highway to Belém.  

A BBC report  showing images of felled trees through the Amazon Rainforest to make way for the highway brought on a tidal wave of criticism against COP and was used as leverage against the climate movement as a whole. While not purpose built for the summit (construction was announced in 2020 with planning first announced in 2012), ‘a four-lane highway carved through the Amazon for the world’s elite to attend a much-photographeclimate summit’ is a damning image to shake. 

Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) have been campaigning since June to, well, kick big polluters out of COP 30. By analysing the passes of every attendee they have revealed that 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists will be attending COP 30. That's 1 out of 25 total attendees. 

Fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber delegates from the 10 most climate vulnerable nations put together demonstrating an inverse relationship between climate change stakeholders and the decision making power they hold. 

All this came out before day 1 of the summit which began with Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), making an opening speech (full). 

The speech was lean and touched on the major talking points of renewable energy taking over fossil fuels. He makes a neo-liberal case incentivising the avoidance of climate catastrophe. “Economy” was uttered 7 times, terms “environment”, “ecology”, “species”, and “life” were not used. Credit is handed down to those “with their faces marred by dust and sweat and blood who strive valiantly.” 

In a same day press conference Stiell expressed that big forces are needed to make the climate altering impacts expressed so urgently in the Paris Climate Agreement. These forces, namely the free market, are powered by cost incentives that will work to our ecological benefit by adopting cheaper renewables, for instance. 

“...humanity is still in this fight” Steill states, “We have some tough opponents”. True enough some are wearing conference passes.

A later statement is dedicated to Indigenous people using far more ecocentric language. 900 Indigenous people have participated at the summit. Greater numbers including supporters, not to mention groups like KBPO, stand in strong opposition to it. 

A large demonstration blocked an entrance on Friday (14th). Later a determined group made their way into the summit demanding that it open its doors to the people. 

This year’s COP summit marks 10 years since the Paris Climate Agreement was signed by 195 countries. As required, signed parties have submitted their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). 
 
November 2025 global NDC synthesis report:

The new data paints a positive picture. One that firms up the summit's goal of “reinforcing multilateralism and cooperation”. But global temperatures have already been reached that have altered the climate as we know it. 

Absent from the summit was the USA. Absent from the synthesis report are the USA's emissions data too.  

Strengthening the peripheries of climate action are Together4Transparency and the Information Integrity campaign. The former is a proposed coalition of nations and NGOs to share emissions figures and emissions reduction measures to promote shared reflective insights. The latter seeks to “make truth go viral” to counter online climate disinformation.

Liverpool took centre stage as the first “accelerator city” in decarbonisation. Liverpool City Council Leader, Cllr Liam Robinson spoke via video (foregoing the jet ride) showcasing the city’s decarbonisation programs and clean energy industries like the Mersey Tidal Barrage.

Updated spending allocations were provided from the ‘Baku to Belem roadmap to $1.3T’, “a practical plan to scale climate finance for developing countries to USD 1.3 trillion annually by 2035” funded by developed countries.  The spending pledges were agreed late at last year’s summit in Baku.

The pledge could have been a major bargaining chip for the UK and EU as a collection of rich, developed nations. Unfortunately for them their pledge to ‘triple’ their climate fund was apparent in early drafts leaving them little room to present it to the table in exchange for further decarbonisation pledges. The BBC’s Climate Editor reported “the tripling concept was already baked in.”

For the first time in COp history the USA sent no federal delegate. 

Instead, bearing the flag was Trump-adverse California governor Gavin Newsom. He scorned Trump as an “invasive species” whose plans to open Northern Californian shores to oil drilling would take place over his dead body.

The vaccuum was an appotunity to represent an alternative will to the federal government on a world stage too often saturated with Trump-noise. 

China was undoubtedly a leading presence at the summit with its pavilion in a prime location opposite the main entrance and accessible English language exhibitions. 

Its presence was more than visual - the delegation showcased major wind and solar rollouts, confirming significant decarbonisation projections, EVs and battery technology. 

China is eating its cake and having it too. The Chinese pavilion showcased its massive energy producduction capacity while China’s ‘developing country’ status shieds it from making further contributions as its economy grows. 

The US-China dynamic on climate has inverted. Before, COP summit climate goals were undermined by Chinese non-cooperation while the US was the driver of international climate cooperation. This year petro-states (successfully) resisted decarbonisation measures citing the US rolling ahead with fossil fuels and drilling while China took centre stage as an energy transition leader. 

Reducing fossil fuel consumption did not make it into the key final decision. States like Saudia Arabia were abrasive to the concept of international delegations deciding their affairs "We make energy policy in our capital not in yours," said one Saudi representative.

Reflected in the opening speeches of Simon Stiell, COP 30 focused on the economy first before mentioning the planet and its inhabitants. 

COP 30 reinforced the criticisms it received leading up to the summit and the criutisisms od summits past. Fossil fuel interests are largely unscathed while the climate-consious feel yet again excluded and disenfranchised by the elite gathering.

The thing even caught fire at one point.