The United Nations COP30 climate summit has commenced in Belém, Brazil, amid significant absences of world leaders, including U.S. President Donald Trump, fueling debates on the relevance of international climate negotiations in an era of diverging energy strategies. This year’s gathering contrasts sharply with past COPs, where nearly 200 leaders attended, and raises questions about whether the process can drive meaningful action without full participation from major powers.
The COP30 conference, running from November 10 to 21, 2025, brings together diplomats and experts to address urgent climate goals, but the absence of key figures like Trump, China’s Xi Jinping, and India’s Narendra Modi highlights growing geopolitical tensions. A family photograph from the summit reveals a sparse lineup compared to the crowded scene at COP21 in Paris a decade ago, symbolizing a shift in global commitment. This comes as scientists warn that the planet is on course to temporarily breach the 1.5°C warming limit set by the Paris Agreement, underscoring the urgency for accelerated efforts.
President Trump’s administration has explicitly rejected the Paris Agreement, which he labeled a ‘con job,’ and has prioritized fossil fuel expansion through rolled-back regulations, tax breaks for oil and gas, and lobbying against global emissions deals. The U.S. has not sent high-level officials to COP30, instead focusing on energy deals that promote American hydrocarbons, with threats of tariffs for nations that do not comply. Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the policy by arguing that renewables have been subsidized long enough, while critics like John Podesta, a climate adviser to previous administrations, accuse the Trump team of taking a ‘wrecking ball’ to clean energy initiatives.
In contrast, China has emerged as a clean technology superpower, with renewables accounting for a significant portion of its economic growth and dominating global production of solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. This positions China against the U.S. in a battle for control over the future energy landscape, leaving regions like Europe and emerging economies caught in the middle. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has warned against repeating past mistakes, such as losing solar manufacturing to China, and emphasized the need for Europe to capture part of the projected €2 trillion clean energy market within a decade.
The geopolitical split is evident at COP30, where some leaders have criticized the U.S. stance, but many diplomats fear openly opposing Trump due to economic repercussions. The summit aims to advance climate action through an agenda of 30 goals, including reviewing national plans to cut emissions, mobilizing $1.3 trillion annually in climate finance, and adopting adaptation indicators. UN Secretary-General António Guterres stressed that it is ‘time for implementation,’ highlighting the gap between current pledges and the needed 60% emissions reduction by 2030 to stay within safe warming limits.
Financing remains a critical challenge, with the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap outlining priorities to boost multilateral funds and address barriers like investment treaties that allow corporations to sue governments over climate policies. Current nationally determined contributions fall short, targeting only a 10% emissions cut, and adaptation finance must increase twelvefold to meet developing countries’ needs. The Just Transition Work Programme seeks to ensure climate measures do not deepen inequality, with calls for a ‘Belém Action Mechanism’ to coordinate efforts and support vulnerable nations.
Amid these efforts, the relevance of annual COPs is under scrutiny, with experts like Michael Liebreich suggesting fewer, more focused meetings to allow industries to develop. Supporters, however, argue that COPs provide a crucial platform for accountability and signaling global commitment, especially in countering U.S. opposition. The outcome of COP30 will influence whether future summits can drive real progress or become symbolic amid entrenched political divides, with the real battle shifting to bilateral deals and economic strategies rather than multilateral consensus.
