select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
James Bamborough, Sustainability and Net Zero Policy Manager at the Institution of Engineering and Technology said:
“COP30 in Belém has highlighted the scale of work still required if global climate commitments are to translate into practical delivery. The Belém Declaration sets out important intentions on green industrialisation and cleaner energy systems, but progress will depend on governments adopting credible, technically grounded plans.
“The UK’s continued international engagement on climate technology and resilience planning is welcome, though it is now vital that the UK leads with policy consistency providing long-term solutions that enable engineers, industry and local authorities to act at pace. The absence of the USA from parts of the negotiating process has created additional uncertainty at a time when stable international alignment is essential.
“We’re pleased that COP30’s Action Agenda is structured around whole-systems planning via the six axes. This is critical to delivering resilient, low-carbon infrastructure. Engineering solutions for energy, water, digital systems and nature must be coordinated rather than pursued in isolation. Achieving this will require strong international collaboration, shared standards and more transparent pathways for implementation.
“COP30 offers vital direction, but delivery will rely on what comes next. We need evidence-based policy, long-term investment, and close cooperation between policymakers and the engineering profession. Without this, the commitments made in Belém risk remaining only partial steps toward the systemic change required.”
Dr Nathan Johnson, Research Associate in Sustainable Energy Systems at Imperial College London, said:
“Keeping 1.5°C alive means phasing out fossil fuels and slashing deforestation this decade. Yet the COP30 text doesn’t mention ‘fossil fuels’ at all and refers to ‘deforestation’ just once. More finance for the poorest is welcome, but without a clear plan to wind down coal, oil and gas and stop forest loss – the principal drivers of warming – this deal sidesteps both the causes of and solutions to the crisis.”
Dr Aline Soterroni, Senior Research Fellow in the Nature-based Solutions Initiative and Oxford Net Zero, University of Oxford, said:
“As a Brazilian scientist working on climate–nature linkages, it is disappointing to see a ‘forest COP’ in the Amazon advance without strong language on halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The science is unequivocal: in tropical countries like Brazil, halting deforestation is essential for achieving net-zero emissions1. Globally, our terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks must be protected and restored; otherwise, reaching global net zero will be put at serious risk2.
“Beyond carbon, safeguarding forest ecosystems such as the Amazon — that is approaching a critical tipping point — is vital for maintaining key ecosystem services, including water regulation, which supports food production and renewable energy security. It is also a moral and ethical imperative. Deforestation destroys biodiversity, undermines ecosystem resilience, and harms local communities and Indigenous peoples, who have contributed the least to these crises yet bear their impacts most acutely.”
1 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16984
Prof Shaun Fitzgerald FREng, Director of the Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge, said:
“The final day of COP says a lot. The lack of progress on agreeing the path and crucially the timing on phasing out fossil fuels is terrible. 30 years of talking and just baby steps. We owe it to future generations to rethink the whole process because a system which requires all 190+ countries to agree on something hasn’t worked.”
Dr Alaa Al Khourdajie, Research Fellow, Imperial College London, said:
“The text repeatedly asserts resolve to keep 1.5°C “within reach”. However, our only chance for 1.5°C is now likely through overshoot, i.e. temporarily exceeding before returning, which already comes with huge feasibility challenges. Yet the outcome acknowledges a 2.3–2.5°C trajectory, risking even this overshoot-and-return scenario. Without binding requirements for immediate fossil fuel output reduction and increased mitigation action, we’re choosing between accepting 2.3°C as permanent or attempting course correction so late that any overshoot becomes unnecessarily deep and prolonged (if return remains feasible at all), resulting in more irreversible climate impacts.
“While establishing a roadmap is positive for planning, “each country at its own pace” presents a fundamental tension with physical reality. The carbon budget is fixed and rapidly diminishing. Delay doesn’t provide options, it eliminates them. If national pace is determined by economic convenience rather than physical constraints, every year without output cuts pushes the peak higher and makes return to 1.5°C less feasible, should we decide to attempt return at a later point.
“While NDCs have improved, aggregate ambition falls short of the 60% reduction by 2035 required for 1.5°C. Crucially, per the recent ICJ advisory opinion, NDCs aren’t voluntary suggestions. Under Article 4(3) of the Paris Agreement, they must reflect states’ “highest possible ambition.” Setting targets that knowingly fail to align with temperature goals may constitute internationally wrongful conduct.
“COP30 was a diplomatic success (keeping the process alive, meeting funding targets), but a physical failure. We needed clear signals to enable managed overshoot with feasible return; we got an accelerator for voluntary measures that risks either permanent exceedance or unnecessarily severe overshoot.”
Prof Alexandre Antonelli, Executive Director of Science at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew said:
“COP has fallen short of delivering an agreement that reflects what the science unequivocally demands. The path ahead is unmistakable: we must cut emissions, protect and restore nature, and follow the science. If we act together, we can still secure a liveable planet and the future of generations to come. As the COP President, Brazil did, however, deliver some meaningful progress. They introduced a clear and ambitious financing mechanism (the Tropical Forest Forever Facility) to safeguard the world’s tropical forests, and strengthened collaboration across the Global South to advance a fair and resilient bio-economy.”
Prof Nathalie Seddon, Director of the Nature-based Solutions Initiative, Smith School for Enterprise and Environment, University of Oxford, said:
“I find it deeply troubling that a COP widely branded as a ‘forest COP’ and held in the Amazon region, has failed to deliver anything meaningful on forests. In the formal outcome, forests are largely confined to preamble language, with no roadmap for halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, and only very weak, voluntary references in the mitigation work programme. This falls far short of what the science tells us is urgently needed. Intact, biodiverse tropical forests play a critical role in stabilising the climate and protecting us from climate change impacts, yet they will only continue to do so, if they are protected, restored and governed in partnership with the Indigenous Peoples and local communities who care for them.
“Equally worrying is the absence of a clear, time-bound roadmap for a just phasing out fossil fuels. Without a rapid, orderly and equitable exit from coal, oil and gas, we won’t meet our climate goals, not least because we are effectively forcing the biosphere to shift from being a net absorber of greenhouse gases to a net source, as forests, wetlands and other ecosystems cross biophysical tipping points. The leadership shown by countries such as Colombia, which challenged the lack of fossil fuel phase-out language and forced the plenary to be suspended, stands in stark contrast to the timidity of the final text. It seems that the political mandate is there, but the plan is not. Until we have coupled roadmaps for ending deforestation and phasing out fossil fuels, grounded in rights and direct finance for those who safeguard ecosystems, we will remain off track for a safe and just future.”
Prof Michael Grubb, Professor of International Energy and Climate Change, University College London (UCL), said:
“The damp squib of outcome from COP30 has underlined that a focus on the negative – phasing out of fossil fuels – is fraught with political obstacles. Too many countries, including many developing countries, hope to profit from developing and selling fossil fuels. For the road to COP31, the focus must be balanced by equal attention to the positive – the huge economic potential of accelerating the energy transition, and ways to help countries around the world benefit from renewables and electrification.”
Dr Alan Dangour, Director of Climate and Health at Wellcome, says:
“I want to thank the Brazilian Presidency, Brazil Ministry of Health and UN Climate Change teams for their courage and determination to make progress at COP30 in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
“UN Climate Conferences will always involve compromise and incremental progress while every country has to agree a final text.
“I am heartened to see the increased action at COP30 to protect human health as well as the much greater focus on the challenges that climate change brings to vulnerable communities around the world.
“The Belém Health Action Plan and the important decision on the Global Goal on Adaptation will ensure the inclusion of robust, evidence-based action and indicators on health that are vital to protect lives and livelihoods in the years ahead.
“Wellcome and our partners are committed to supporting climate and health solutions where they are most needed and this work continues at pace both outside climate conferences and as we look forward to COP31 next year in Türkiye and Australia. We will build on the important progress made in Brazil and ensure that science continues to deliver the solutions to protect health from climate change – our lives now depend on it.”
Dr James Dyke, Associate Professor in Earth System Science, and Assistant Director of 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.”
Professor Richard Betts MBE, Head of Climate Impacts Research at the Met Office Hadley Centre, and Chair in Climate Impacts at the University of Exeter, said:
“Holding this COP in the Amazon put the ongoing threat to tropical forests in the spotlight. With global warming set to exceed 1.5C in the next few years, forests will play a vital role as carbon sinks to help limit the extent of further warming and potentially reverse it in the long term. Continuing to study and protect them will be crucial.”
Dr Steven Smith, expert in positive tipping points and exponential change at the University of Exeter, said:
“Before the COP process kicked off in Berlin 30 years ago, climate scientists already knew that a safe operating space for humanity depended on us rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels – we needed to lower GHG emissions at least 60% by the 2020s. Instead, 30 COPs later, we’ve increased emissions by 60%.
“So, it would be easy to say the COP process has failed, forgetting how much worse things might have been without it. At COP 21, countries came together to agree to limit global warming to below 2oC, preferably 1.5oC. At COP 28, countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. Now, over 140 countries and sub-national governments covering over 90% of the world’s economies have carbon net zero targets. The rate of growth of emissions is slowing down, from 2% per year down to 0.6%. Emissions of the world’s worst polluters have peaked. A clean tech revolution is set to transform the world. This year, growth in solar and wind for electricity generation surpassed the total growth in electricity demand, which means fossil-fuelled electricity generation is now in structural decline.
“It is beyond disgraceful that a few countries could veto in the overall ‘cover decision’, the ‘Global Mutirão’, on the need to ‘transition away from fossil fuel’. But the battle to reach a final compromise text at Belem is not where the real war is being waged. This is between the world’s two economic giants, the USA and China, who are going all in on opposite energy futures, and not just for themselves. Both countries have ambitions to be the energy supplier to emerging countries and are building enormous energy exporting capacities – China with solar panels and batteries, and the USA with Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). As Ember’s Sam Butler-Sloss and Kingsmill Bond persuasively argue, China looks to have the winning hand as solar power continues to race ahead as the cheapest, fastest to deploy, and most versatile energy source in human history. For the three-quarters of the world that imports fossil fuels, renewable energy electrification is also the path to energy independence and security.”
Dr Jesse Abrams, Senior Research Fellow and one of the UK’s foremost experts in Physical Climate Risk at the University of Exeter, said:
“The removal of fossil fuel transition language from the COP30 draft represents a concerning reversal of the limited progress made at COP28. This backsliding comes at precisely the moment when our understanding of climate risks shows we have less room for delay than previously thought.
“We’re already seeing floods, droughts, and extreme events intensifying globally, while systemic threats from potential tipping points in Earth systems loom larger. Current risk assessments systematically underestimate these dangers by failing to account for how climate impacts cascade through economic networks and can trigger irreversible changes in systems like ocean circulation.
“As geopolitical fragmentation intensifies, particularly with shifts in US climate leadership, we’re likely to see climate action increasingly driven by coalitions of willing nations and industries rather than unified global frameworks. This diplomatic deadlock doesn’t pause the physical climate system. Each year of continued fossil fuel dependence locks in greater exposure to extreme events while increasing the probability of crossing irreversible thresholds – with profound implications for global security and economic stability.”
Dr Martina Egedusevic, an expert in nature-based solutions and risk management at the University of Exeter, said:
“COP30 will be remembered as the moment global leadership simply evaporated. At a time when extreme heat, catastrophic floods and wildfires are setting new records every year, negotiators still could not summon the basic courage to stand up to fossil-fuel interests. This is not a diplomatic setback. It is climate malpractice. Wealthy nations and petrostates have knowingly chosen political convenience over planetary survival, allowing the crisis to accelerate while pretending their watered-down commitments are progress. History will not be kind to those who had the power to act and instead chose delay, denial and self-preservation.”
Dr Marcos Oliveira Jr., Research Impact Fellow at the University of Exeter, said:
“COP30 marked significant progress in the global governance of information integrity. For the first time in the history of COP, the topic of information integrity was formally included in the official agenda, with two dedicated thematic days.
“The COP30 Presidency also appointed a Special Envoy for Information Integrity, underscoring the strategic relevance of the topic. One of the main outcomes was the mobilization of a Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, accompanied by the launch of the ‘Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change’ on Wednesday, 12 November. By endorsing the declaration, countries committed to implementing strategies aimed at addressing climate misinformation, strengthening information ecosystems, and promoting the dissemination of accurate and reliable climate-related knowledge.”
Prof Daniela Schmidt, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, said:
“We are currently on the path of warming with devastating consequences for many regions, peoples, economies, and ecosystems. This COP has not changed this path, has not increased speed or ambition.
“How do we pick ourselves up and, if the governments don’t increase action, bring this to the places where we work, the cities where we live and communities where we are home? Because this is where the action must be when governments fail. No action is no option as too many communities are deeply vulnerable to climate change. While at the moment we are focused on floods, hurricanes, droughts and term these as extreme events, they will become the norm and combine with increases to food prices, displacement and increasing loss of livelihood. Climate change will not stop because we do not acknowledge what needs to be done.”
Dr Robin Lamboll, Research Fellow at Imperial College London, said:
“This COP has been deeply disappointing. It claimed to be a COP of action, but all comments on fossil fuels, and even most comments on deforestation that this COP was supposed to highlight, have been removed from the final text. Being literally on fire at one point was a fitting metaphor. Even the absence of the USA, the hoped for “ambition by the ambitious” failed to materialise, with many countries falling behind on their NDC updates.
“Nonetheless, it has provided a few points of light. The reaffirmation of the importance of keeping 1.5C in reach, implicitly even when it may be temporarily exceeded, is good, but relatively toothless. The need for more precision on how to limit warming and who would pay for any carbon removal would be essential going forwards. The text is also relatively good for indigenous rights, including the first acknowledgement of tribes in voluntary isolation. It also featured distinct progress on loss and damages.”
Prof Simon Lewis, Professor of Global Change Science, University College London, said:
“Bitterly disappointing. That all countries cannot agree to even plan a roadmap for a just transition to phase out fossil fuel is a failure.
“The balance of geopolitical power in the world is such that we can call it a ‘non-polar world’, where climate change ravages the planet, yet no country or group of countries commands sufficient power to collectively tackle the problem.
“The COP30 presidency announced two roadmaps to curb fossil fuel use and to halt deforestation, but these are coalitions willing, not binding agreements.
“The good that came out of COP, such as the new scheme to protect tropical forest, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, $2.5 billion for protecting Congo Basin Forests, and $1.8 billion for forest-dependent indigenous and local communities, happened outside the main process. Expect more of this a non-polar world.”
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said:
“There were many positive outcomes from this summit, such as the launch of the new initiative on the Tropical Forests Forever Facility to tackle deforestation. However, the lack of an explicit reference in the final decision to the need for a transition plan for the phase out of fossil fuels shows the unfortunate and harmful influence of major producers of oil, coal and gas who put their short-term financial interests ahead of the best interests of current and future generations around the world.
“In addition, the COP process demonstrably failed in dealing with the indicators of progress on the global goal on adaptation, with negotiators butchering the list carefully put together by experts over the past two years, rendering the final list deeply flawed.”
Dr Nina Seega, Director of the Centre of Sustainable Finance at the University of Cambridge’s Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), said
“The outcome of COP30 hinged on fossil fuels and finance. The nature of Mutirao compromise meant that a reference to fossil fuels did not make it into the final text, but rather the Presidency announced two roadmaps – one for transitioning away from fossil fuels and one for halting and reversing deforestation. A climate finance work programme was announced, but situating the adaptation goal within $300bn goal creates a zero-sum dynamic between mitigation and adaptation funding – a false choice that undermines comprehensive climate action.
“The question leaving COP30 is whether that would be enough to prevent millions more from enduring the simultaneous catastrophes of heat, flood, and fire that Belém itself demonstrated so powerfully.”
Eliot Whittington, Executive Director of the University of Cambridge’s Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) said:
“COP30 in Belem was a story of slow progress and complicated politics struggling to catch up with growing green economy momentum. We saw the launch of new innovative financing mechanisms to protect forests, and an unprecedented movement of countries against fossil fuels – but the final text which did include clarifications and strengthening of many details around international climate action was hemmed in with weak, obscure language and was greeted with opposition by many countries questioning what was actually agreed.
“This is not a failing or weak multilateral process – it was energetic and dynamic and controversial. But it given the diversity of perspectives in the international community it is not delivering the necessary speed of progress on climate action.”
Declared interests
Simon Lewis: “no competing interests.”
Robin Lamboll: “No interests to declare.”
Daniela Schmidt: “No competing interests.”
James Bamborough: “No conflicts of interest.”
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.