COP30 threatened by fossil fuel war after EU rejects Brazil's plan

Belém, Brazil

The clock was ticking down on the penultimate day of UN climate talks in Brazil on Friday, and a heated dispute over whether to include fossil fuels in any agreement threatened to derail the gathering.

The goal of COP30 is to secure a deal that will pave the way for speedier cuts to planet-warming emissions that are driving increasingly extreme weather—as well as to demonstrate that international collaboration can still function in a broken globe.

Following nearly two weeks of discussions in the Amazonian city of Belem, COP30 host Brazil revealed a new draft accord that contained no reference of “fossil fuels” or the term “roadmap”, which President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had publicly championed.

Wopke Hoekstra, the European Union’s climate commissioner, called the statement “unacceptable” and warned that the summit could end without agreement.

“I am saying it with a heavy heart, but what is now on the table is clearly no deal,” Hoekstra told reporters.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a European delegate claimed the bloc was being portrayed as “villains” for refusing to support the deal. Some member states were considering a walkout, the delegate said, while others were concerned about being blamed if the discussions failed.

The conference, which was halted for several hours Thursday by a fierce fire that tore a hole in the venue’s roof, as well as by two Indigenous-led protests last week, was scheduled to conclude on Friday evening at 6:00 p.m. (2100 GMT).

Countries were sending workers back to their hotels long after that, as the summit was expected to last into the weekend.

• Consensus is essential.

Thirty-six countries, including wealthy nations, emerging economies, and small island states, warned Brazil in a letter that they would reject any accord that did not include a strategy to transition away from oil, coal, and gas.

Monique Barbut, France’s minister for ecological transition, told AFP that oil-rich Russia and Saudi Arabia, as well as coal producer India and “many” rising countries, were rejecting the language.

Arunabha Ghosh, a special representative for South Asia at the negotiations, responded to “finger pointing”.

“To assume that one side cares about the planet and the other side, because they are unhappy with the formulation, does grievous harm to the spirit of negotiations,” he told the news agency AFP.

Ghosh supported the absence of the “roadmap”, claiming that poor countries needed to secure energy security and a fair transition for their workers in the fossil fuel sector.

Consensus is required among the almost 200 nations to reach an agreement at the UN climate summit, which is taking place this year without the United States because President Donald Trump has boycotted the event.

The head of COP30, Brazilian diplomat Andre Correa do Lago, said that those who disagree that cooperation is the best way ahead for climate change “are going to be absolutely delighted to see that we cannot reach an agreement between us.”

• Money battle –

The demand for a phaseout of oil, coal, and gas—the primary drivers of global warming—arose from frustration with the failure to implement the COP28 agreement in Dubai in 2023 to move away from fossil fuels.

Disagreements persist over trade policies and financing for poorer countries to adapt to the effects of climate change, such as floods and droughts, and transition to a low-carbon future.

The rejected plan called for a “manifold increase” in financial help for underdeveloped countries. It also called for “efforts to triple adaptation finance” by 2030, up from 2025 levels.

“The EU is stuck with a much earlier tripling of adaptation finance than they’re comfortable with, and in exchange, they got nothing,” said Jake Schmidt, senior strategy director at the Natural Resources Defence Council, an advocacy group. “It’s a tough pill to swallow,” Schmidt told AFP.

For the first time, trade has been included as a pillar of the draft language, reflecting poor nations’ fears that imposing tariffs on carbon-intensive commodities, such as Europe’s proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, will reduce export income.

It was another element that the EU did not want included in the accord.