At one point, about 80 countries, just under half of those present, demanded a specific plan to divest from fossil fuels.
But oil producers such as Saudi Arabia have insisted that fossil fuels should not be segregated. Other countries, including some in Africa and Asia, have also made a very fair point: Western countries like the US have burned the most fossil fuels and benefited economically from it. This contingent argues that legacy polluters have a unique responsibility to finance the transition of less rich and developing countries, rather than simply preventing them from following the same development path.
The United States, by the way, did not send an official delegation to the negotiations for the first time in 30 years. But the absence spoke volumes. In a statement for New York Times White House spokesman Taylor Rogers said President Trump has “set a strong example for the rest of the world” by pursuing new fossil fuel development.
To summarize: some countries are economically dependent on fossil fuels, some are unwilling to stop depending on fossil fuels without incentives from other countries, and the current US administration would rather continue to use fossil fuels than switch to other energy sources.
All of these factors together help explain why the final COP30 agreement makes no mention of fossil fuels at all. Instead, there is a loose line that leaders must take into account the decisions made in Dubai and the recognition that “the global transition to low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible and is the trend of the future.”
I hope this is true. But the worrying thing is that even on the world's biggest stage, naming what we must give up and making any plan to actually do it seems impossible.
This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology ReviewWeekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, register here.
