‘No money, no talk’: Analysts disappointed at divisive COP30 climate summit

Despite heightened calls for climate urgency, the COP30 climate summit concluded in Brazil last weekend without addressing the one issue many experts have called non-negotiable: A pathway to phase out fossil fuels. 

The omission sparked disappointment across many countries and environmental groups, who warned that the world is not winning the fight against climate change. 

James Chin, professor of Asian studies at the University of Tasmania, said the outcome reaffirmed the widening gap between rich and poor nations. 

He said that wealthy countries remain unwilling to acknowledge their historic emissions or bear the financial responsibilities of climate mitigation, while developing nations face escalating climate losses and limited pathways to fund adaptation. 

“There was basically no outcome for the meeting. At the end of the day, (rich nations) refuse to pay and this is where the big divide is,” he told CNA938.  

“Mitigation of climate change costs billions and billions, and like (the saying goes), ‘no money, no talk’.”

A DECADE ON – LITTLE PROGRESS

Ten years after the Paris Agreement, parties were cautiously hopeful this edition of the United Nations’ climate conference would usher in renewed commitment. The 2015 Paris Agreement sought to limit future global temperature increases at 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. 

Instead, COP30 was among the most divisive summits so far and highlighted the fragility of international climate diplomacy, said observers. 

More than 80 countries pleaded for a fossil fuel phase-out roadmap – but were drowned out by opposition from powerful petrostates and several major economies. 

The failure disappointed many, including Injy Johnstone, a research fellow in net zero aligned offsetting at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. 

“Any delay to the transition away from fossil fuels not only adds fuel to the fire. (It also shows the) limitations of the consensus process,” she told CNA’s Asia First programme.  

A transition roadmap, she added, could have turned political rhetoric into “something tangible that countries can work with and actually implement”.

JUST A ON-PAPER DEAL?

On a more positive note, Brazil’s COP30 presidency managed to push through a compromise deal that urged rich nations to triple climate finance for developing countries by 2035 to help them adapt to rising seas, stronger storms and extreme heat.

But analysts remain sceptical over whether it will work out.

Chin dismissed the pledge as a “public relations exercise” aimed at justifying the cost of hosting COP30. 

“Nobody actually believes that it will come to fruition. Just like all the previous COP, most of the climate change key agreements have not been met,” he said.

“Unfortunately, the rich countries have now come to the conclusion that there is very little middle ground. It is the poor countries that will ultimately pay the price.” 

THE USA EFFECT, EVEN IN ABSENCE 

Another disappointment at this year’s conference was the absence of the United States, which did not send an official delegation. 

US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly questioned climate science, has rolled back renewable energy support and pushed for expanded domestic fossil fuel production since returning to the White House in January. 

Analysts say Washington’s stance carries implications far beyond American borders, influencing COP30’s dynamics despite its absence. 

“It’s not about America's emissions itself. It's the message it sends to other countries,” said Aaron Choo, a senior assistant director of sustainability and special projects at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs. 

“Without a pro-environment US in the room, suddenly Russia (and) other fossil fuel producing countries are more bold in blocking certain language, declarations and frameworks.” 

Still, Johnstone noted it was encouraging that dozens of US state and local leaders – including the governors of California, New Mexico and Wisconsin – attended the talks, signalling that subnational climate action in America remains alive. 

CHINA’S QUIET RISE 

In contrast, China has been quietly advancing its climate agenda, said observers. 

In September, Beijing made a landmark climate pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 7 to 10 per cent below peak levels by 2035. China is also the world’s biggest supplier of clean energy technology. 

Choo said global audiences tend to – but should not – underestimate Beijing’s climate ambitions. 

“China's been quiet, but it’s getting deal-making done. China is concerned about (climate) partially because of their own domestic environment – they want to clean up industries, decarbonise and electrify for their own sake,” he added. 

“And what China is doing then has knock-on effects for other countries.” 

WHY IS IT SO HARD TO PHASE OUT FOSSIL FUELS?

Analysts say the structural challenges behind fossil fuel dependence remain immense.

“Things aren't black and white in the journey to green,” said Johnstone.

“Right now, a lot of states are bankrolled on fossil fuels, so it's unsurprising that any roadmap to their cessation can be seen as a challenge.”

Chin agreed, noting that countries are reluctant to commit to expedited fossil fuel phase-outs as clean energy transitions remain costly, and especially as the world’s biggest emitters like the US and China have resisted doing so themselves.  

“Unfortunately, many economies are following the Americans. Many countries find that if we drill more … oil prices will be stabilised. (Both) poor countries and the world's biggest economies benefit from stabilised oil prices,” he said. 

“So, countries like China and India, who are major consumers of oil – they also jump on board. Because (otherwise), it will affect the growth rates.” 

The stalemate over fossil fuels has ultimately prompted a separate international conference scheduled for next April in Colombia, co-hosted by the Netherlands. 

Johnstone said: “This represents a strong signal that if the UN system can't deliver, other countries are going to step in. I hope we can see further pressure building from the sidelines.” 

Choo summed up the challenge that continues to plague climate negotiations: “It's difficult to talk about climate when we're worried about our own incomes, housing, medical costs – and (that’s the) same at a national level.

“But it matters. The effects of climate change will make our lives worse. Even if we don't live to see it, our children will see it. That's the reality.”