November 21, 2025

expert reaction to closing stages of COP30

experts comment on the closing stages of COP30

Dr Hannah Hughes, Senior Lecturer International Politics and Climate Change at Aberystwyth University, said:

“The Brazilian COP President, André Corrêa do Lago, restated in Friday morning’s stocktaking plenary, the three central objectives of this presidency as to strengthen multilateralism, to connect the process to people’s lives and to accelerate implementation. These objectives go to the heart of this question and concerns over whether the UN climate negotiations can still deliver collective climate action at the pace and scale required. The presidency was not able to provide the agreement package early or even on time, as it had aimed to do by Wednesday, and one of the reasons for this is precisely because these negotiations remain a decisive global battle ground. 

“At this COP, key issues have included the need for governments to build collective agreement on the transition away from fossil fuels, a framework that supports a just and orderly approach to achieve this, and the level of finance and transparent accounting methods for developed countries to support mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage in developing countries. These are challenging issues in the context of the continued financial allure and gain from fossil fuel exploitation and the erosion of environmental regulation worldwide.

“While the Brazilian presidency has gone to great lengths to consult extensively between groups and parties to build the COP30 outcome. However, observers have been left outside these rooms and with limited information on what is taking place inside. Most observers have heard nearly every argument from every angle made by governments during these events, so they may as well let us watch and document, as is our role in this process. For myself, this is a key element of restoring trust and holding those that speak on all of our behalf to account.”

Prof Heiko Balzter, Director of the Institute for Environmental Futures at the University of Leicester, said:

“COP30 was a polarised climate summit. Low- and middle-income countries pleaded with the industrialised nations to resolve to come up with clear plans to transition away from fossil fuels to avoid climate breakdown. The Environment Minister of Vanuatu said that already half of their Gross Domestic Product is wiped out by climate disasters, until eventually the whole nation will be submerged by rising sea levels if no urgent action is taken. Over 80 nations pushed hard to reach a resolution to act on fossil fuel burning. However, a powerful block of oil-producing and consuming states blocked any mention of fossil fuels from the so-called Mutirao Declaration. Scientists recognise that the Paris Agreement has moved the world from an expected +4 Degrees global heating closer to +2.7 Degrees, but it does not act quickly enough to get anywhere near the threshold of dangerous climate change of +2 Degrees and ideally +1.5 Degrees. I expect that a coalition of the willing will emerge from Belem, in which nations push ahead with the just transition towards net zero emissions despite the blockages. Polluters will be left behind by the green revolution and eventually be held responsible for the deaths and disasters that they are causing.”

Prof Nathalie Seddon, Nature-based Solutions Initiative, University of Oxford, said:

“Brazil has started to bend the curve on deforestation: official figures show Amazon deforestation is now around half its 2022 level and at its lowest in more than a decade, and here at COP30 the government has just fully recognised four Indigenous territories and moved to demarcate over twenty more. But this progress is fragile and still the exception, not the rule – global forest loss remains off track for the promise to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030, especially as fires and industrial agriculture continue to drive loss. We’ll be closer to truly stopping deforestation when measures like strong enforcement, secure Indigenous land rights, and direct finance for community-led conservation become the global norm. And when pressures from industrial animal agriculture fall as diets change.

“One of my main takeaways from this COP in Belém is that the political mandate is there, but the plan is not. President Lula has called for a roadmap on forests; Indigenous Peoples and local communities are here in historic numbers, asserting their rights and their critical role as forest protectors; and scientists are warning that parts of the Amazon are approaching critical tipping points. Yet the draft outcome still lacks a concrete, time-bound Forest Roadmap, and attempts to strengthen cooperation across the Rio Conventions on climate, biodiversity and land have been markedly diluted. For a COP hosted in the heart of the Amazon, in the most biodiverse country on Earth, that is deeply worrying. COP30 must still deliver an actionable roadmap to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030, grounded in rights and direct finance for those who safeguard the forest, and a clearer mandate to align climate and biodiversity action; without that, this ‘forest COP’ will have failed its defining test.”

Dr Injy Johnstone, Research Associate in Net Zero Aligned Offsetting at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, said:

“It’s clear overall from COP30, that despite the devil is in the detail in terms of implementation, and we have seen that detail tested on a number of fronts in the negotiations including in the rooms governing carbon trading under the Paris Agreement, where the need to course correct to a more transparent and rigorous system has already become apparent.”

Are there likely to be any significant concrete outcomes?  

“Agreement to close the Clean Development Mechanism is a significant step, the ‘hot air’ it has and could continue to bring into international carbon markets is significant and a clear market signal that it is over is powerful.”

What does the outcome mean for temperature limits like 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius?

“Continued pressure from the Brazilian Presidency, and the incoming Turkish one will be essential to continue to close the current gap between NDC ambitions and the temperature goal.”

Do you see significant progress in any area? 

“Progress was seen in terms of emphasising the need for informed, transparent and rigorous carbon trading under Article 6.2: including recognition of the Governments of the UK and Australia who have chosen to undertake that commitment domestically.”

Where does the progress fall short of expectations? 

“The carbon trading rules are no closer to realising net zero than before, for instance, a request to separately report reductions and removals was rejected in the final days of negotiation.”

Are we any closer to stopping deforestation? Why (not)?

“This COP has been positive in terms of illustrating the many complementary tools that exist to help end deforestation from regulation to climate finance, however we need to be careful not to place our eggs in any one of these baskets.”

What’s your main take-away from this COP?

“That the time for deliberations is over, we are very much in the age of implementation, and that comes with a need to ensure.”

Is the new deforestation financing model proposed by Brazil (TFFF) a ‘good’ solution to slow down climate change?

“The TFFF is innovative in its approach, including by channelling finance to the jurisdictional level to help finance a range of interventions: however, the need for adequate follow through, including further fundraising and deployment of that capital will be essential to its success.”

And on the COP process itself, are these negotiations still decisive moments in the fight against climate change?

“The process is a critical one to surface the key barriers, including political will, that exist for a truly coordinated approach to addressing climate change.”

In your opinion, what will have made COP30 a success or a failure?

“The follow through: to what extent will this translate into more implementation on the ground, and a continued focus on raising ambition to get us to reach the goals.”

Dr James Dyke, from the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, said:

“COP30 comes ten years after COP21’s achievement of the Paris Agreement, and its objective to limit warming to well-below 2°C. For the Paris Agreement to have had any chance of success, governments – particularly those in rich, industrialised nations – would have needed to accelerate the phase out of fossil fuels at the same time of phasing in the financial support for energy transitions in the Global South. Neither have happened. In 2024, industrial processes poured a record-breaking 37.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while the amount of climate finance thus far promised is a fraction of what is needed. Despite the host’s best efforts, COP30 will not even be able to get nations to agree to fossil fuel phase out. This shameful outcome is the result of narrow self-interest and cynical politicking.”

Dr Fernando Barrio, Reader in Sustainable Business Law and Policy, Queen Mary University of London, said:

“As discussions progress here in Belém, it has become increasingly clear that climate change is a collective problem that demands collective action, and COP30, despite its imperfections, remains one of the few global arenas capable of delivering it.

“We have already seen progress in areas where multilateral cooperation genuinely moves the needle. The strengthening of the bioeconomy agenda, the launch of the Alliance for the Implementation of National Adaptation Plans, and increased commitments under the Global Methane Pledge are encouraging signals. Over 2.8 billion dollars in new support for farmer adaptation and resilience shows that finance can still be mobilised at scale when political will aligns.

“In addition, the Forest Finance Roadmap, backed by governments representing nearly half of the world’s forests, is an example of the kind of structural initiative needed to move beyond symbolism and into system level transformation.

“These efforts matter because when regulation and coordinated action are in place, whether in methane control, deforestation monitoring, or energy system restructuring, emissions fall and markets shift. Behaviour changes because the system changes, not because individuals suddenly transform their lifestyles out of moral duty.

“A further sign of systemic progress is the work carried out under the Technology Mechanism, which has gained prominence in Belém. The joint efforts of the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network are helping countries identify and deploy climate technologies that reduce emissions and build resilience. The showcase on bridging policy, innovation, and action for solutions in least developed countries and small island states demonstrated how knowledge, technical assistance, and real projects can be connected in practice. The discussions on the future management and support of the Climate Technology Centre and Network, together with renewed attention to the linkages between technology and finance, show that the mechanism is evolving into a more coherent instrument capable of supporting implementation rather than merely issuing recommendations. This progress matters because climate ambition will remain rhetorical if countries lack access to the technologies required to deliver it in the real world.

“But progress is uneven. The central challenge remains around fossil fuels and finance.

“Negotiations around a global roadmap for phasing down and ultimately phasing out fossil fuels have opened the right conversations, but not yet the right commitments. A roadmap in which each country proceeds at its own pace risks becoming a roadmap to nowhere. We need clarity, accountability, and timelines consistent with science rather than political convenience.

“Likewise, adaptation finance continues to fall far short of what vulnerable countries require. National Adaptation Plans are multiplying, but most remain unfunded. Without predictable grant-based financing, even the most ambitious plans remain aspirational.

“Brazil’s proposal for a new deforestation financing mechanism known as TFFF reflects a growing recognition that climate integrity and forest protection are inseparable. Whether the mechanism will be effective depends on its design, which should include transparency, permanence safeguards, Indigenous rights protection, and accountability to ensure that it becomes a breakthrough rather than another fragmented instrument in an already crowded ecosystem of forest finance. The political signal, however, is important because there is no path to one point five degrees that does not involve ending deforestation this decade.

“Are the current NDCs and new pledges enough to keep one point five degrees alive. They are not, at least not yet. Even optimistic modelling shows the world overshooting one point five degrees in the 2030s. But the depth and length of that overshoot are not predetermined. Stronger commitments on fossil fuels, methane, and forests, combined with accelerated adaptation finance and clearer long term targets, could still limit the damage and shorten the overshoot period.

“What COP30 must deliver is the credibility gap, the assurance that national pledges are backed by implementation pathways rather than rhetoric.

“There is a recurring question this year asking whether COPs are still decisive. My answer is yes, because without them, the alternative is fragmentation. COPs create the space where countries negotiate on equal footing, including those with tiny delegations and limited resources, where continuity is preserved beyond electoral cycles, where shared rules, inventories, transparency systems, and technology cooperation can exist at all, and where global expectations are set even when consensus is messy.

“We do not solve planetary scale market failures through individual virtue or bilateral deals. We solve them through governance, institutions, and collective accountability, and COPs are where those structures are negotiated.

“My main takeaway from COP30 is that multilateralism remains essential, but it must evolve. Negotiations are increasingly shaped by regions historically sidelined, including African nations, Indigenous organisations, and vulnerable states whose experiences now define the climate reality. When one major power steps back, others step forward. The geopolitical centre of climate action is shifting, and Belém has made that visible.

“If COP30 succeeds, it will be because it delivered the tools that allow collective action to exist, among them credible NDCs, a clearer fossil fuel pathway, real adaptation finance, and durable mechanisms for forest protection. If it fails, it will be because ambition remained optional and timelines remained negotiable.

“Either way, the message is the same. For collective problems, instead of cursing the darkness it is not enough to light a candle, because individual candles do not illuminate a planetary crisis. Only structural and collective illumination will.”

Dr Benjamin Niemark, Reader in Geopolitical Ecology, Queen Mary University of London, said:

“There will be some outcomes, but I believe the inability to agree on at least the principles to phase-out fossil fuels seems like any outcome will fall way short of any likely chance of us being able to limit temperature limit to 1.5, and maybe even 2 degrees Celsius.

“I found that the solidarity around Indigenous rights – particularly the diverse array of Amazonian groups – and the consensus that any decisions made on the health of intact ecosystems depends on significant “buy-in” from grassroots movements. While everyone is focused on financing and “top-down” political decisions, it is the “frontline” environmental activists and groups living in these environments that decide if climate policy in both adaptation and mitigation will succeed.

“All in all, the COP30 felt a bit defeatist, less ambitious and almost as if people we willing to keep a very strong sense of the status quo. Questions remain still if China, Brazil or European countries are willing to be climate leaders filling the void left by the US. Even so, NDCs promised by the countries that did submit, still contain significant gaps in reporting (e.g., military emissions). The NDCs may be effective for understanding individual countries reporting, but generally they fall short because ghg (particularly, methene) do not follow the national boundaries. Supply chains, global production and consumption and environmental damage adhere not to national boundaries, but to more regional geographies. Leadership may now emerge not from nation states, but from local officials – NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani, e.g., Bloomberg was a climate leader as NYC mayor, or Governor of California, Gavin Newsom.

“There is a role for COP, and by default, multilateralism. But policy without teeth does not help. We need to scale with a focus on local level support (Indigenous groups), and more regional, less national, policy. The latter may run counter to the UN Framework, and therefore climate policy may need to be thought though in different institutional settings.”

Prof Joeri Rogelj, Director of Research, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, said:

“COP30 leaves us between a rock and a hard place. COP30 had to ratchet up ambition, with countries pledging their third round of NDCs. These NDCs have come in hesitantly, inadequately and unambitiously. They move the needle, but insufficiently to confidently avoid 1.5°C or even 2°C of global warming. 

“Last year, our analysis for the UN Emissions Gap Report showed that the tally of all NDC targets kept warming to 2.6°C during this century. NDCs have adjusted that prospect downward to around 2.2-2.3°C. Meanwhile, this is also the first COP at which the prospect of surpassing 1.5°C of global warming has now become acknowledged.”

“Announcements on reducing methane and delivering on phasing out fossil fuels are steps in the right direction, but baby steps at present and do not reflect the urgency required from the actions to halt global warming at manageable levels. 

Prof Chris Stokes, Glaciologist at Durham University, said:

“Due to inaction over the last few years, it is now very clear that we will exceed the 1.5°C limit within the next decade or so. However, this is not the time to give up. Our focus must remain on limiting the ‘overshoot’, both in terms of its peak temperature and its duration. The science is very clear that every fraction of a degree really matters and the good news is that, with enough will and ambition, there is a pathway¹ that will see us reduce the warming to around 1.7°C over the next few decades and then come back down to 1.5°C and even 1.2°C by the end of the century.

“I’ve attended the last four COPs and one of the really concerning aspects is that a very small minority of Parties continue to dilute the science, attempting to soften the language and down-play the risks. For those of us monitoring Earth’s icy regions, our mantra has always been that you cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice. Due to our past inaction, some changes in Earth’s icy regions are already locked in, such as glacier and ice sheet loss that will lead to sea level rise and profound impacts on water availability that will affect hundreds of millions of people. However, the research also shows that the quicker we can slow and halt the warming, the more we can reduce the loss and damage from climate change.

“The COPs receive a lot of criticism, some of which might be deserved, but it is very clear that we would be in a far worse position now than if they had not been taking place.  At one point, it was plausible that we might have seen warming approach 4°C by the end of century but current policies and action are likely to bring that to below 3°C and possibly as low as 2.5°C. This is still far too high, of course, but with the highest possible ambition, it is possible to reduce warming to below 2°C and then come back down to safer levels.”

¹ https://climateanalytics.org/publications/rescuing-1-5c

Prof Simon Lewis, Professor of Global Change Science at University College London, said:

“Entering the end game Brazil continues its unorthodox presidency by conducting all negotiations behind closed doors. 

“The plan seems to be to publish a weak draft text to flush out what countries really care about. These concerns can then be traded off in private negotiation. The hosts can publish a new near-final version and claim it is ambitious. Most countries can also claim that they got something. And the process survives. 

“But, and its a big but, there needs to be a plan, a roadmap, or some other mechanism, to transition away from fossil fuels for these international negotiations to be credible. COP30 needs to grasp the nettle and devise a roadmap to get the world off our addiction to fossil fuels. The clock is ticking.”

Prof Monjur Mourshed, Professor of Sustainable Engineering at Cardiff University, said:

“A successful COP30 will depend on whether negotiations can close the current ambition gap. COP30 must negotiate a package to implement a just transition roadmap, establish a clear finance mandate, and require countries to enhance their 2035 climate plans substantially. The greatest failure would be leaving Belém with only ‘options’ instead of ‘decisions’ on the complex issues. If we do not establish a clear plan for phasing out fossil fuels, or if the finance texts are watered down, we will have crossed a critical threshold, giving more weight to political convenience than the survival of vulnerable communities.

“Adaptation finance remains one of the biggest challenges in the COP process. While urging the North to fulfil its commitments with concessional, non-debt-creating funds, we must also address the Governance and Capability Gap in the South. Scarce adaptation funds should not be allowed to leak away through top-heavy overheads, mismanagement or corruption, rendering them ineffective.

“To secure both global trust and a higher ambition, COP30 must mandate a dual solution: a substantial injection of transparent finance from developed nations, coupled with a commitment to locally monitored accountability from recipient nations, ensuring every dollar invested saves a life and does not line a pocket.”

Dr Emily Theokritoff, Research Associate in Climate Damage Attribution at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, said:

“Adaptation is now a crucial issue as climate change intensifies worldwide. For countries in the global South on the frontlines of its worst impacts, scaling up adaptation finance is fundamentally a matter of climate justice. While adaptation limits are real and increasingly being reached, many harmful outcomes can still be avoided if we work to close the persistent adaptation gap.”

And these thanks to our friends at the Irish SMC:

Dr Breffní Lennon, Research Fellow at the Sustainability Institute, University College Cork, said: 

“I did not come to this year’s Conference of the Parties with any real expectations, as so many previous COPs have been exercises in disappointment or have shown slow incremental progress. However, I had hoped we would be shifting away from the current pledge-based format to something more constructive and applied, and there has been talk here that this COP may be the start of a new style of Conference of the Parties. Speaking this morning, the Colombian environment minister Irene Vélez Torres describes the problem as essentially revolving around the “methodology of consensus” with the most ambitious agendas are repeatedly torpedoed by vested interests for the fossil fuel lobby. While there has been progress, we are still way off the 1.5 degrees promised in the Paris Agreement.

“If COPs did not matter, the current US administration would be here paying lip service to the climate crisis, but they are not because they know it is important for multilateral cooperation and it still has the potential for transformative change. What this COP and previous COPs have shown is that words really do matter. And they are still important to progressing global climate governance. We don’t have any real equivalent alternative. that is why certain country groups are fighting so hard to block any mention of “fossil fuels” or a “roadmap” to phasing out of fossils fuels in the current draft of the COP30 text. Though 80 countries back a “fossil-fuel roadmap” only 24 (including Ireland) have pushed back against the current draft text.”

Dr Neil Robinson, Lecturer in Net Zero Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, said: 

“A serious transition away from fossil fuels requires Northern Ireland to better use its renewable energy resources, such as wind generation, to satisfy the bulk of its energy needs. The region currently aims for 80% of its electricity to come from renewables by 2030 – from April 2024 to March 2025 the real number was 43%, and this was actually a drop compared to the previous year, so continued investment is needed to get this contribution closer to 100%.

“For the average person this transition will mean our lives will become more electrified. This means some changes to our transport, with greater reliance on electric vehicles. We would also see changes in our building infrastructure, with gas boilers potentially phased out and replaced with electric heat pumps.

“The transition also presents opportunities for the local workforce to develop and apply green skills, and for new jobs within the region – these will be needed to develop and maintain a modernised electricity grid capable of distributing this renewable energy (this opportunity is currently being explored through the Northern Ireland Green Skills Action Plan). This grid would be stabilised by battery storage, and could potentially be supported by biomethane and hydrogen in a clean gas network. Biomethane is a particularly attractive area for development as it can provide an additional source of income from farming and agriculture.”

Prof Peter Thorne, Professor of Physical Geography, Maynooth University, and Director of the Irish Climate Analysis and Research UnitS group (ICARUS), said:

“I wasn’t expecting a huge amount of this COP and I’m very unlikely to be pleasantly surprised. There are so many moving diametrically opposed positions on so many issues, and even traditionally non-contentious issues such as the SBSTA research and systematic observations proved hard to agree. There will undoubtedly be the usual range of apparently eye-catching initiatives put forth. But at heart the key challenges will remain.

“Not enough countries showing anywhere near enough ambition, and even less evidence of actual action, on emissions reductions to keep warming well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels (at this juncture keeping warming below 1.5 is a pipe dream). Nowhere near enough financial assistance is being given by countries from the global north (those most responsible) to aid the global south (those most vulnerable). There is still a reluctance to move off our addiction to fossil fuels (globally we still subsidise fossil fuel use more than moving to alternatives). No amount of window dressing will do more than present a mirage in front of these broader issues.”

Declared interests

Emily Theokritoff: “I have no interests to declare.”

Peter Thorne: “None.”

Monjur Mourshed: “I have no interests to declare.”

Neil Robinson: “I receive research funding from the NI Department for the Economy, I am a member of the NI Government’s Green Skills Action Plan lead group developing the plan’s communication strategy and approach, I hold an Honorary position at the University of Western Australia, from 2022 to Jan 2025 I held a Forrest Research Foundation Fellowship at the University of Western Australia.”

Joeri Rogelj: “I am a long-standing Lead Author on the UNEP Emissions Gap Reports which provide the numbers I discuss above.”

Simon Lewis: “No competing interests.”

Chris Stokes: “no conflicts of interest.”

Breffní Lennon’s research “is supported by the Environmental Protection Agency Ireland and Taighde Eireann – Research Ireland through the MaREI Research Centre for Energy,  Climate, and Marine at University College Cork.”

James Dyke: “no interests to declare.”

Heiko Balzter “is Head of the University of Leicester delegation at COP30”

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.