COP30 kicked off in Belem, Brazil earlier this week. Delegates from 200 countries are attending.
The Climate Action Tracker report released on November 13 shows that the planet is on course for a 2.6 temperature rise. Countries are drilling and burning extensive volumes of fossil fuels. Civil society is focusing on just transition demands. Financing is poor.
In Belem, forest defenders, indigenous people and environmental activists have staged protests. A People's Summit is starting in parallel.
If we have 10 minutes to spare, what do we need to pay attention to in COP this year? What threads carry over from former COPs?
Environmental consultant and activist Ahmed Droubi walks us through some essentials. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Mada Masr: Rising temperatures continue to dominate COP discussions. We are not on track with the 2015 Paris Agreement goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, and we had the hottest summer on record last year. But we seem to be doing slightly better in the last decade -- are there grounds for hope?
Ahmed Droubi: With everything happening politically -- the rise of the right in Europe and North America and a lot of climate denialism -- there are a lot of concerns. Amid the genocide in Palestine, there is also a lack of trust that is jeopardizing the whole process.
Of course, we have moved dramatically since adopting the Paris Agreement. Warming estimates were above 4 degrees, and now we're at 2.6. But that's dramatic and has serious implications. Anything above 1.5 degrees means that some countries are in complete risk of disappearing, especially the small island states. The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming could mean roughly triple the climate impacts.
What we need to do is reduce our emissions by 45 percent by 2030. We are very late, because the deadline for countries to submit their Nationally Determined Contributions report on their emissions reduction was in February 2025, and only a handful of countries submitted their revised emissions targets then. By the end of October, around 64 out of nearly 190 countries had submitted, and, between them, the total emissions reduction estimate is 17 percent by 2030 -- far below the 45 percent target.
MM: Reducing emissions cannot take place without climate financing. Where are we after the Azerbaijan COP29 pledge of US$300 billion in climate financing?
AD: The founding principle of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the original convention, was common but differentiated responsibility. That means that the Global North, which has been most responsible for emissions and climate change, should hold that responsibility, and not burden the Global South that has proportionately done very little to cause the crisis that we're in.
There is definitely improvement, but we are still very far from where we need to be. With the geopolitical changes that we're seeing, it looks like there will be less and less climate finance. The Global North is focusing more and more on militarization, less and less on climate finance and our collective future.
There are a lot of concerns: the exponential growth in artificial intelligence for example, which utilizes immense amounts of energy and will be a driver for the continued use and propagation of fossil fuels. The AI battle is a battle for future supremacy between China and the United States, and this is sadly surpassing climate mitigation as a priority. We are also seeing the Donald Trump administration's thirst to expand the fossil fuel industry, which is manifesting in a colonial manner with what is unraveling in Venezuela, [which has been subject to US naval attacks that Venezuelan officials say are part of a quest to seize control of oil reserves.]
At the same time, in the Global South, the need for adaptation is accelerating dramatically. We need COP30 to bring about an agreement on adaptation indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation, including securing proper finance. The needs for Africa alone are estimated at US$70 billion a year, and the estimated flow in 2023 was less than $15 billion. We need this number to dramatically increase. The global estimated need is $1.5 trillion a year. What was agreed upon in Baku, Azerbaijan, was $350 billion by 2035. The gap is immense.
The same applies to the Losses and Damage Fund. It's amazing that there was an agreement to establish the [climate reparations] fund in Sharm el-Sheikh, and that it was established at the opening of COP28 in Dubai. But it's an empty box.
The lack of climate financing does not only impact the ability of the Global South to mitigate and to transition away from their dependence on fossil fuels, but also it impacts their ability to implement proper adaptation.
The Global North is not fulfilling its obligations. And sadly, more and more, climate financing is being framed like it's charity. This is a historic responsibility. These are reparations that need to be paid. It's deeply concerning going into COP this year, especially with the lack of trust in multilateralism.
MM: You cite AI as a manifestation of the Global North prioritizing spending that isn't climate financing. Why are you singling that out, as opposed to ongoing spending on fossil fuels in general?
AD: It's the lack of predictability in how much energy AI consumes, and the growth of this consumption. This is deeply concerning, because we can't estimate it now. And the more competitiveness is happening, the more power consumption will increase.
You can see indicators like Meta signing an agreement with Constellation Energy, a US nuclear power plant, at a time when big tech is rushing to supply their data centers with energy that could be integrated in the national grid. Microsoft has a deal with the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, for their data centers. The thirst [to grow and power] these data centers is only increasing, and the pressure to divert electricity from national grids to these centers is dramatic.
AI aside, if you look at the estimates for fossil fuel extraction by 2050, the top five countries that will be expanding their extraction are the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Norway. These are Global North countries, some of which are often framed as climate champions. And then you see, historically, people like Al Gore and John Kerry come out as the heroes who are trying to convince the "backward" African countries to replace fossil fuels with renewables. The hypocrisy is clear. The companies that are looking to extract the fossil fuels from the Global South are Global North companies.
We are left with countries in the Global South that have not made significant historic contributions to climate change, and that are at the same time in debt traps, an endless cycle of indebtedness, and you're telling them not to extract the fossil fuels. A country like Mozambique has debt worth 96.5 percent of GDP. Around 60 percent of the population doesn't have electricity. They have discovered massive reserves of fossil fuels. How can we now tell the Mozambican government not to extract these fossil fuels without sufficient climate finance?
MM: You've said the erosion of multilateralism has serious implications for negotiating solutions to the climate crisis. Can you speak to that?
AD: The current neoliberal economic model that we live under concentrates intellectual property rights in the Global North, not allowing for the full transfer of technology and know-how to those who need it in the Global South. It is a massive obstacle [to adaptation]. And the kind of solutions we're seeing, like the unilateral trade measures that are being implemented, especially in Europe, are deeply concerning, because these are not developed under the multilateral mechanism. These are unilateral measures that focus on reducing emissions and mitigating the climate crisis, but also increase the competitiveness and economic dominance of the Global North.
MM: What needs to happen at COP for it to become a more efficient forum for climate negotiations?
AD: COP30 needs to prioritize implementation. We've been talking for 10 years since Paris, and 33 years since the establishment of the UNFCCC, but it's about taking action to actually reduce emissions. And that is not happening.
We need drastic change and I am convinced it can't happen via the COP process alone. The mandates that negotiators have, that are on the table, are not sufficient to create the change that is required.
MM: What kind of push for implementation is possible? Would it be in relation to reporting duties on a national level, for example?
AD: There is a failure to have a higher ambition in the NDCs in order to meet the 1.5 degrees goal. That's implementation.
We also need climate finance to materialize out of the multiple streams of negotiations.
We need to develop a framework for just transition. The civil society demand at COP is what they are calling the Belém Action Mechanism, which can ensure democratically developed transition plans that are built from the bottom up, that focus on development and are centered on job creation. And that needs to be financed.
We need the Global Goal for Adaptation to actually have indicators that link to the ground, to people's lives, and that the Global Goal on Adaptation maintains the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, relative responsibility and equity. And this needs to have predictable, quality finance in the form of grants and not loans.