COP30 climate talks deadlocked amid fossil fuel rift

Fighting over fossil fuels and money appeared to have stalled the COP30 climate talks as negotiations dragged on through the night.

Negotiations were due to wrap up by 6:00 pm local time (21:00 GMT) on Friday, and with many delegates having already left, time is running out to secure a deal.

Host Brazil had hoped countries would agree to determine how to transition away from fossil fuels, but the draft agreement released Friday morning makes no mention of coal, oil and gas, whose emissions are a major cause of climate change.

This was unacceptable to a group of countries including Britain, while some poorer countries want tougher cash commitments to help them cope with rising temperatures.

The closing session (or “plenary”) is currently scheduled for 11:00 local time (14:00 GMT).

All countries attending these annual climate talks must agree to reach an agreement.

This can be difficult. Different countries have competing priorities based, for example, on their dependence on fossil fuels, economic conditions or vulnerability to climate change.

As a result, the conference is usually delayed, sometimes by more than a day.

But two-thirds of the countries that have signed the UN climate convention must be present for decisions, according to UN rules.

And with many delegates due to leave the country in the coming hours, the clock is ticking for countries to come to an agreement.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva wanted the talks to provide clearer steps on how countries would move away from coal, oil and gas.

“The world needs a clear road map to end dependence on fossil fuels,” he said ahead of the talks.

This will build on the agreement reached two years ago at COP28 in the United Arab Emirates, where countries agreed on the need for a “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.”

The idea of ​​a “road map” was supported by dozens of countries, including the UK, but oil-producing countries sharply opposed it.

Some of these countries argue that they should be allowed to exploit their fossil fuel reserves, as others have done in the past.

And they have often called for a focus on reducing emissions rather than on fossil fuels themselves, through technologies such as carbon capture.

Many scientists have criticized this approach for failing to address the problem at its source.

Some developing countries have not supported the fossil fuel deal because they want richer countries to provide money first to help them adapt to the effects of climate change. Richer countries have historically failed to deliver on these promises.

Poorer countries have repeatedly called for more support, arguing they face the worst impacts of climate change despite bearing relatively little responsibility for rising temperatures.

The latest version of the agreement, released Friday morning, made no mention of fossil fuels, which many countries considered unacceptable.

On Friday, UK Energy Security and Net Zero Minister Ed Miliband said he was determined to keep the fossil fuel-free roadmap “alive” “one way or another”.

The draft agreement did include a call for tripling the funding available to countries by 2030 to help them adapt to climate change.

But it doesn't say whether this should come from the governments of richer countries or from other sources, such as the private sector.

Despite pushing for a more ambitious fossil fuel deal, Brazil has come under scrutiny for its own plans.

Offshore oil and gas production will continue to increase until the early 2030s, according to analysis provided to the BBC by Global Witness.

The forecast is based on data from reputable analyst Rystad Energy, which confirmed the figures.

But President Lula has repeatedly defended fossil fuel developmentarguing that oil revenues could help finance Brazil's transition to cleaner energy.

He also pointed to his achievements in reducing the rate of deforestation of the Amazon rainforest.

On the eve of the talks, President Lula launched a fund to prevent the loss of tropical forests around the world.

But convincing countries to participate in the fund has proven difficult.