COP30 in Belém: Checking in with… Géraldine Pflieger
Last week, the 30th United Nations Climate Change Change Conference (COP30) took place in Belém, Brasil. Amongst the official Swiss delegation was Géraldine Pflieger, representing the scientific perspective. She is a is a professor of urban and environmental policy at the University of Geneva. After the conference, we were to get a short scientific assessment of what was – or was not – decided at COP30.
ProClim: After last year's COP, you mentioned that you were “very concerned about the weak results on mitigation and ambition. It is clear that there was no progress on these issues between COP28 and COP29.” No plan was agreed in Belém for phasing out oil, coal and gas. How do you assess this in terms of achieving the 1.5 °C target?
Pflieger: It is true that no concrete plan or roadmap has been approved for the exit of fossil fuels. In addition, transitioning away from fossil fuels is the criterion for evaluating the results of COPs on mitigation. But such a focus faces the recurring veto of producing countries and several oil-consuming countries, which happened again during COP30. In the field of the phase-out of fossil fuels, the unanimous decision-making process within the COPs makes the adoption of an ambitious agreement on this issue unlikely. A complementary treaty could be more effective and virtuous in the short term. On the ability to stay below the limit of 1.5 °C, all scientists are unanimous that the probability is increasingly reduced or even zero, with a carbon budget remaining to date at only 130 GT eq CO₂. However, every tenth of a degree counts and the stakes remain intact to limit the extent of the overshoot. From this point of view, the need to raise the level of commitment of States, in the context of their Nationally Determined Contributions, and the implementation of their commitments remain priorities.
At the beginning of the COP, up to 80 countries spoke out in favour of a roadmap to phase out coal, gas and oil. Will this roadmap be pursued?
This roadmap will continue outside the climate negotiations, at the initiative of the signatory countries of the call for the exit of fossil fuels. The development of a new treaty on fossil fuels promoted by countries such as Colombia and the creation of a state alliance wishing to accelerate the exit of fossil fuels seem more hopeful. Indeed, it is important not to simply target oil producers but to have an international mechanism that recognizes the common responsibility of consumer and producer countries in the considerable challenge posed by a just phase-out of fossil fuels.
Do you also see any positive decisions that were made at the COP?
The COP brought several important advances. First, just transition was strengthened with the creation of the Belém Action Mechanism, a platform dedicated to supporting workers and communities in the climate transition. It is a very important step as the IPCC clearly shows that a transition could only be efficient if it is just and equitable. Next, a Gender Action Plan was adopted for the period 2026–2034, aiming to integrate gender equality into climate policies. However, the plan uses weak language on human rights and suffers from limited funding. On adaptation, the COP approved 59 initial indicators for monitoring progress, marking a key step forward. Finally, countries committed to tripling adaptation finance and launching a funding cycle for loss and damage, to better support vulnerable nations facing climate impacts.
And last but not least: How do you see the role of science – can it even make itself heard between geopolitical interests and various lobby organisations?
Science has once again found itself at the centre of major challenges and several countries under the influence of oil lobbies have made speeches that minimize the role of science and challenge established scientific facts. We have even heard remarks of pure climate denial, contributing to affirm that the observed increase in temperatures was probably not as important as the one actually measured. The final decision of the COP nevertheless succeeded in countering such a movement by calling for the first time to combat climate misinformation. The role of key institutions such as the IPCC, its legitimacy and integrity, its ability to include different knowledge systems are all urgent actions that must be undertaken to respond to attacks on science. Science must not only make itself heard among geopolitical interests, but be seized by the great democracies that must be the guarantors of negotiations that are fully anchored in scientific evidence and facts.