Jean D’Cunha
The mammoth challenge, not only at the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP 30) on Climate Change, which opens today and runs for the next ten days in Brazil, but also before and likely long after, is the nature of our global economic, political, and social structure.
As Laudato Si’, Pope Leo XIV, and the joint document of the Churches of the Global South, including the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, state, our economy and governance systems are built on inequality, profit-driven growth, and extractivism that produces, consumes, and disposes with a careless disregard for the finiteness of natural resources, nature’s cycles, and space for nature’s regeneration. Our value systems centered on money, power, material possessions, overconsumption, and waste reinforce this.
In this landscape of inequalities, wealthy countries and the asset-owning elite in both rich and poor nations have historically been the destroyers of our planet. Meanwhile, poor countries and marginalized groups in both the north and south, who have contributed the least to this, have borne the heaviest burden of the planetary crisis. It’s no surprise that our collective climate action goals fall short of the targets.
As of 5 November 2025, only 73 out of 198 State Parties have submitted their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), according to the UNFCCC’s NDC registry. Some of the biggest polluters still haven’t submitted, making it unclear whether discussions on NDC ambitions will take place as planned.
Clear targets, timelines, and pathways to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, phase out fossil fuels to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and protect and restore biodiversity in all ecosystems will remain difficult discussions.
Fossil fuel or renewable energy?
The fossil fuel industry claims that phasing out will lead to energy shortages, an economic crisis characterized by price swings, job losses, social unrest, and high costs to handle stranded assets. This will be especially true in countries heavily reliant on fossil fuel production and revenues — particularly if renewable energy and supporting infrastructure like storage and transmission are not developed quickly enough to meet demand.
They propose ‘bridge fuels’ — natural gas and ammonia firing — to replace more carbon-intensive coal, and technologies like carbon capture and storage to trap CO2 emissions, claiming that these enable them to meet climate targets while maintaining expensive infrastructure and ensuring energy supply.
They also support carbon offsets, which allow continued operations while funding initiatives in the Global South that reduce carbon footprints as compensation for their own pollution.
Contesting this are ‘phaseout’ advocates who call for timely, definitive phase-out plans and transitions to renewable energy to avoid catastrophic climate impacts, improve health and well-being, and strengthen economic assets.
They highlight rapidly falling renewable energy costs, arguing that aggressive investment, together with grid modernization and energy efficiency, makes a fully renewable energy system feasible and cheaper than continued reliance on fossil fuels.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) states that although the fossil fuel lobby often markets gas as a “transition fuel,” it is primarily methane — a greenhouse gas 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over 20 years.
Protecting land, people
Experts contend that Carbon Capture Technologies (CCTs) are costly, unproven at the necessary scale, and energy-intensive. These proposals, along with carbon offsets, serve as distractions to delay a genuine transition to renewable energy, while still allowing continued profits from fossil fuel production, greenhouse gas emissions, and trillions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies that should be withdrawn and redirected to fund the transition.
On the need for targets, timelines, and concrete financed actions to protect all forms of biodiversity, Brazil emphasizes forests due to their proximity to the Amazon and frames forest protection and biodiversity as interconnected crises. Protecting and restoring nature is crucial to achieving global warming climate goals and targets, including those outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Forests act as carbon sinks, and scientists are advocating that forest fires, especially in tropical forests, be included in greenhouse gas emissions inventories rather than dismissed as purely “natural” problems.
Furthermore, Brazil is leading efforts to expand on COP26 commitments to a stronger, more ambitious intergovernmental pledge to officially recognize and legally secure land rights for indigenous peoples and local communities by 2030.
These communities manage large areas of the world’s most biodiverse and carbon-rich forests. However, their legal rights to these lands are often unrecognized, insecure, or poorly enforced, leaving them vulnerable to illegal encroachment, deforestation, and violence. Additionally, having secure land tenure is considered one of the most effective ways to prevent deforestation, as studies show that deforestation rates are consistently lower in legally recognized territories managed by Indigenous peoples and local communities.
The funding challenge
A major issue is climate finance. Under the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, countries in the Global South are united in demanding that wealthy nations pay their ecological debt as historical polluters. They insist that these nations fulfill their financial commitments and transfer technology to help reduce the carbon footprint and boost climate resilience in the Global South.
At COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, a scaled-up figure of US$1.3 trillion annually by 2035 was identified as the funding requirement for developing countries — up from the previously agreed US$300 billion. Governments will engage in difficult negotiations over the roadmap to operationalize and implement this, with wealthier nations aiming to lower the standards and to include BRICS countries and other wealthy, Middle Eastern nations in the financing group.
A strong civil society voice, including faith-based groups, is calling for non-debt-creating finance options — such as grants, public funds, or, in the worst case, highly concessional loans — and for this financing to be primarily allocated to loss and damage and to the adaptation of vulnerable communities.
Additionally, there is considerable civil society pressure to establish benchmarks for climate finance aimed at vulnerable groups — rural and urban poor, Indigenous people, migrants, women, and girls. They seek to ensure that this funding is sufficient, supports multi-year programs, is governed by simple procedures, promotes direct access, and is supported by enforceable accountability mechanisms to address shortfalls effectively.
Hope for commitments
While these are some of the fundamental issues on which significant immediate progress would be surprising, the government of Brazil has mobilized a large political machinery to try and break deadlocks and launch new initiatives through negotiations with governments well in advance.
Other key strategies have included emphasizing multilateralism and actively involving a wide range of civil society and climate-affected communities to ensure they participate in climate decisions and actions that align with their strategic interests. This not only broadens the scope of multilateralism beyond being primarily state-centered but also enhances the legitimacy of civil society, including faith-based groups, to challenge and expand climate action.
Brazil’s Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) is seeking US$125 million to pay tropical countries that protect rainforests, with 20 percent of the funding from this and other initiatives allocated for indigenous people and local communities. It is gaining endorsement and financial support. Whether full funding will be secured remains uncertain.
According to Nithi Nesadurai, who leads the Climate Action Network Southeast Asia, Just Transition (JT) will gain momentum due to increased global advocacy, with a probable agreement on an institutional negotiation framework, such as the Belem Action Mechanism, expected to continue beyond COP31. Progress is also anticipated in Adaptation, with likely reductions in the number of indicators across the 11 Global Adaptation Goal targets.
Brazil’s emphasis on an ambitious gender action plan with clear actions, targets, indicators, and budgets is a positive sign for gender equality and women’s rights advocates. How much of the original plan will stay, and whether it will be adopted, remains uncertain in the face of conservative opposition.
In any case, the combined influence of science, data, cost-benefit analysis, ethics, and human rights — supported by governments and persistent global civil society pressure — is our only hope for salvation.
This article was originally published in UCA News.
Dr Jean D’Cunha joined the RAOEN COP30 delegation as one of the virtual delegates and currently advises the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) Office for Environment and Climate Change and the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences on COP 30.