"The climate crisis remains an issue that we must address globally"

COP30 in Belém ended with a compromise judged more than mixed. “The gap between the measures taken by countries and those that would be necessary remains far too large. COP30’s response is extremely insufficient. It should have clearly called on all States to significantly strengthen their climate plans. Instead, we were given only timid encouragements and the decision to open, in 2026, new negotiations and initiatives intended to reduce this gap, whose outcome remains uncertain,” laments Thomas Häusler, WWF climate expert and member of the Swiss delegation sent to Brazil.

Fossil fuels appear to be the main winners of this COP, with states unable to agree on a roadmap to phase them out. As for the financial support promised to countries of the South — $300 billion per year by 2035 — the conference also failed to clarify the implementation of the climate finance objective agreed last year in Baku.

“So, was this the COP too many?” asks Virginie Lenk in an editorial. Journalist and deputy editor-in-chief of the daily “24 Heures”, she believes that “these costly jamborees should be abandoned in favor of smaller coalitions focused on a single issue, such as forests, agriculture or the oceans. Let us support regional and local solutions, which are simpler to implement. Let us educate our populations toward a sobriety that no longer inspires dreams, and toward respect for nature, at the price of certain sacrifices.”

Live from Brazil, we discuss this with Delia Berner, international climate policy analyst at Alliance Sud, member of the Swiss delegation, and civil society representative during COP30.

Ten years after the ambitious Paris agreements, were expectations around this Brazilian COP too high?

Before the conference, I rather felt that not much was expected, given the current global situation. But as discussions progressed, a positive dynamic emerged under the Brazilian presidency. More than 80 countries called for a plan to phase out fossil fuels, countries of the Global South unanimously demanded increased financial support for adaptation to climate change, and civil society managed to get a mechanism for ensuring a just transition to a climate-friendly economy and society onto the negotiating table.

In the end, however, these demands could not be translated into an ambitious decision: the resistance of some groups of countries on several key points proved too strong.

In Belém, weren’t fossil fuels and their lobbies the big winners of this COP, obtaining a new dangerous reprieve for the planet?

Oil-producing countries did indeed prevent the final text from explicitly mentioning a phase-out of fossil fuels — that cannot be denied. But it must also be acknowledged that some states supported such a plan while including lobbyists from oil companies in their delegations. France, for example, had representatives of TotalEnergies among its delegates. And other countries, like Switzerland, defended the plan even though they do not have a strategy to decarbonize their own transport sector. The situation is therefore complex, and the oil lobby certainly operates at multiple levels.

The other major failure of this COP was financial. Isn’t the problem that pressure is exerted mainly on industrialized countries whose public coffers are empty or overindebted?

The strong pressure on industrialized countries is justified: not only have they emitted significant quantities of CO₂, but they have also become very wealthy. Moreover, due to credit operations and sometimes illegitimate tax practices, global financial flows run more from the South to the North than the other way around. Switzerland, moreover, has no public finance problem: its level of debt is historically low in international comparison.

Other conferences and meetings could be mobilized more coherently to also address climate protection.

Switzerland’s position remains ambiguous on these issues. Does our country lack ambition and vision in the face of the challenges and risks posed by climate change?

Swiss policy lacks both ambition and the will to implement the legal objectives that were nevertheless approved by voters. Instead, very short-term decisions are favored, such as outsourcing emission reductions abroad, even though this strategy complicates the path toward the national net-zero objective.

Policy also turns a blind eye to the activities of the Swiss financial center and the Swiss commodities market in the coal, oil and gas sectors. The effects of the climate crisis have been felt in Switzerland for a long time; I therefore do not understand why our political leaders do not do everything possible to limit warming to 1.5 °C.

After the unfortunate failure of the plastics conference, do these large events — costly and with a disastrous carbon footprint — still make sense?

Yes, I think so. The climate crisis remains an issue we must address at the global level. One can of course debate the effectiveness of these conferences, but it remains essential that all countries meet regularly to negotiate, and that civil society can follow and observe these discussions.

What could the alternatives be, in your view?

Other conferences and meetings could be mobilized more coherently to also address climate protection. For example, economic conferences could focus more on decarbonizing the economy, and the climate crisis should systematically be on the agenda of the Federal Council’s diplomatic trips. But that could not replace global negotiations on climate protection, which remain, in my view, indispensable.

To end on an optimistic note, can we nonetheless point to any positive advances at this COP30?

Civil society played a major role in COP30’s decision to develop a mechanism in favor of a “just transition” to a world free of fossil fuels. To achieve this, it will be essential to involve workers, local and indigenous communities, as well as the entire population. It is the only way to guarantee the success of this transition and to secure livelihoods for all. This “just transition” offers the hope that socially equitable decisions will be made in the face of the climate crisis.

This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.