First, for those readers who may not know, let me explain what COP is. COP stands for Conference of Parties. Here, “Parties” refers to the countries that are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). So, COP = Annual summit of countries party to the climate agreement.
COP is an annual summit under the UN umbrella where countries negotiate on emission reduction, adaptation, financing, and just transition to combat climate change, and determine the direction of global climate policy.
The 4 main objectives of COP
The main objective of COP is to manage the fight against global climate change together. This objective is grouped under 4 main headings:
1) Limiting global warming: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting the global temperature increase to preferably 1.5°C, at most 2°C.
2) Defining and updating countries’ climate commitments: Each country submits its National Contribution Statement (NDC), explaining its emission reduction, adaptation, and financing targets. At COPs, these plans are reviewed, and political pressure is exerted to make them more ambitious.
3) Climate finance and equitable burden sharing: Developed countries are obligated to provide financing, technology, and capacity support to developing countries. The aim here is to ensure that those least affected by the climate crisis do not bear the brunt of it.
4) Adaptation and loss & damage: Dealing with the now unavoidable effects of climate change. Creating adaptation projects and support mechanisms for affected countries to address impacts such as floods, droughts, and sea level rise.
Most COP decisions are not legally binding, but frameworks like the Paris Agreement are binding, and COP decisions are effectively powerful through political pressure, market influence, and reputation. The enforcement power of COPs is limited, but they are perceived as the table that sets the rules of the global game. COPs are held every year because the climate crisis is a dynamic and accelerating problem, constantly updated with scientific data (IPCC reports). Also, the balances of the economy, energy, and politics are rapidly changing.
I previously wrote an article about COP 28. You can read this article at https://serhansuzer.com/tr/cop-zirveleri-iklim-degisikligiyle-mucadelenin-hakkini-veriyor-mu/ .
Now let’s talk about the last COP summit, COP30, held in Belém, Brazil.
The main character of COP30 emerged as “a mechanism to enforce the implementation of promises made, rather than setting new targets.” Major topics were opened in COP28-COP29 (global inventory count, financing targets). COP30 convened with the aim of implementing these. The main slogan and spirit was “Mutirão,” which in Portuguese means “collective mobilization or cooperation.”
Decisions taken at COP30
The main decisions taken at COP30 (Mutirão Decision) were shaped as follows:
1) The 1.5°C target remained in the text: The 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement was not abandoned; however, a clear, binding roadmap was not provided to answer the question of “How?”. The political message was strong, but the legal binding force was weak.
2) Fossil fuels: I regret to say that, unfortunately, the language used at COP28 regarding fossil fuels, the most controversial topic, was further softened. This truly shows that the COPs have taken on a two-steps-forward, one-step-back tone, like a marching band. The final decision lacks ‘phase-out,’ ‘phase-down,’ and includes vague phrases like ‘transformation of energy systems.’
From this, we can conclude that the lobby of fossil fuels, the biggest cause of climate change, continues to fight. We see a tendency to resist and obstruct the changes demanded by all of humanity, primarily due to pressure and blockades from oil and gas producers like the US and Saudi Arabia. Countries do not want to antagonize the US and some major economies, and unfortunately, the mindset of those who govern the world’s largest economic and military power, like the US, remains stuck in the first half of the 20th century. They are unaware that the world is heading towards a catastrophe, or worse, they are aware but, driven by self-interest, they are not hesitating to take actions that will bring about the end of humanity. It’s a complete disgrace.
3) Climate finance: Let’s move on to another major disappointment of COP30. There were promises, but the money was unclear. They promised to increase adaptation financing, emphasizing special support for vulnerable countries. However, there are no clear figures, no mandatory contributions, and no timetable. Developing countries criticized this as “good intentions but a blank check.”
4) Just Transition Mechanism: This important mechanism was accepted. As a result, workers/countries affected by coal, oil, and industrial transformation were addressed systematically for the first time. But of course, although the mechanism exists, its funding is weak and its enforcement is lacking. It is a politically important mechanism, but weak in practice.
5) Increased pressure for NDCs: NDC, or ‘National Determined Contribution,’ is an official document showing what a country commits to doing in the fight against climate change. During the 2025–2026 period, countries were urged to update their existing NDCs (National Development and Contribution Accounts) and make them more ambitious.
However, no conclusion has been reached.
Who supported it, who opposed it?
Let’s look at those who supported and opposed the 1.5°C target, decisions regarding fossil fuels, climate finance, the just transition mechanism, and NDCs (no surprises for me here).
Those who want stronger climate action:
(These countries wanted net fossil fuel output and more funding.)
- EU countries
- Small island states (AOSIS)
- Climate-sensitive countries in Africa and Latin America
Those who slowed down/blocked the process:
(These systematically weakened the fossil fuel issue.)
- Saudi Arabia
- Some OPEC countries
- Russia
Those stuck in the middle:
- USA: Strong rhetoric, reluctant to commit. If it weren’t for the Trump administration, the US would also side with Europe in the fight against the climate crisis, use its power to bring all the hesitant countries to the side of actively fighting the climate crisis, and the balance would shift.
- China & India: The balance between responsibility and financing was emphasized. Here, we especially expect China to be on the side demanding stronger climate action.
Overall Balance Sheet
To summarize the overall balance sheet of COP30:
Positives
- The 1.5°C target was maintained.
- Just Transition was institutionalized for the first time.
- Political pressure for NDCs increased.
Negatives
- A step back on fossil fuels.
- Lack of concrete financing.
- No clear tools to rapidly reduce global emissions.
And of course, one of the important outcomes from our perspective is the decision to hold the next COP31 summit in Türkiye. Before discussing the COP31 summit to be held in Antalya in 2026, let’s look at Türkiye’s performance at COP30.
How was Türkiye represented at COP30?
For Türkiye’s representation, Vice President Cevdet Yılmaz addressed the leaders’ summit. Minister of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change Murat Kurum made statements regarding Türkiye’s climate policies and the NDC process.
Türkiye’s Stance
Regarding Türkiye’s climate stance at COP30, we can say the following:
- It acknowledges climate change.
- It emphasizes its commitment to the Paris Agreement.
- It particularly highlights its “developing country” status.
- It is distanced from absolute and rapid fossil fuel phase-out. • It opposes increased burden without financing and technology transfer.
I do not agree with Türkiye’s approach of ‘Yes to the targets, but let the burden sharing be fair.’ Supporting the so-called targets while remaining weak in implementation is not the right approach. A ‘neither fish nor fowl’ approach is merely managing the situation. I would expect a country like Türkiye, which has significant weight in the region, to make much stronger and clearer statements. It should support absolute and rapid fossil fuel phase-out and should also contribute much more to financing and technology transfer.
Conclusion
The adoption of the Just Transition Mechanism at this summit is a consolation. However, we have witnessed setbacks on critical issues at the heart of the matter, such as ‘phasing out fossil fuels’ and ‘support for climate finance.’
With Trump in power in the US, we are receiving signals of regression in what has been done regarding the climate crisis from all COP summits. With the change of power, we can say that the US, which stood by Europe during the Biden era, has left Europe alone in this struggle. The policies of countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, which support fossil fuels, are also evident. Therefore, not only was there no progress at COP30 in Belém, but the process was also obscured, especially on the very critical issue of phase-out fossil fuels, giving the impression that fossil fuel-based life will continue. This is absolutely unacceptable. We will continue the fight to the end. We will wage every necessary struggle until 100% renewable energy is spread throughout the world as soon as possible.
