The takeaway from the COP 30 UN Climate Conference is stark and unsettling. While the world celebrated a geopolitical pivot — a redistribution of global influence toward the Global South — it simultaneously capitulated to a planetary crisis it consistently refuses to confront. Concluding in Belém, Brazil, on November 22, 2025, COP 30 was hailed as a moment for the climate conversation to return to the Amazon, the lungs of the planet. Yet beneath this rhetoric lies an unambiguous truth: global pivoting is not the same as planetary protection. The tension between these narratives reveals the profound failure of contemporary climate governance. This failure is not abstract—it manifests in rising global temperatures, extreme weather events, biodiversity collapse, and the growing vulnerability of millions whose livelihoods depend on a stable climate. The world applauds symbolic gestures while ignoring existential consequences.
The paradox is visible in the sheer scale of the COP process. COP 30 drew participation from 195 countries and over 56,000 delegates, including Brazil’s national delegation of nearly 3,800 people. Yet, as per multiple sources such as Wikipedia and the Guardian, corporate interests wielded disproportionate influence: more than 1,600 fossil-fuel lobbyists — roughly one in every 25 participants — and over 300 industrial-agriculture lobbyists attended. While the world gathered ostensibly to tackle the climate crisis, those driving environmental degradation retained privileged access, highlighting the disconnect between geopolitical spectacle and genuine planetary protection.
Symbolism alone cannot reduce emissions, restore ecosystems, or dismantle fossil-fuel dependence. The Amazon backdrop risks becoming an elaborate ritual of concern — a stage where states perform anxiety about planetary collapse while leaving the underlying drivers untouched. Nowhere is this more visible than in the linguistic gymnastics deployed to avoid the phrase that matters most: phasing out fossil fuels. Despite decades of scientific consensus through institutions like the IPCC, negotiators continue to dodge the unavoidable. Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway documented in their book Merchants of Doubt how corporate actors and petrostates transformed public understanding of risk not through denial, but through ambiguity, delay, and euphemistic language.
Fossil-fuel lobbying remains entrenched. COP 28 featured over 2,400 lobbyists, an extraordinary figure reported by The Guardian. COP 30 shows no meaningful reduction. When negotiation halls are saturated with those invested in continued extraction, “transitioning away” replaces “phasing out,” and “low-carbon pathways” become euphemisms for prolonged dependence. Even the expansion of renewable energy reflects this contradiction. Solar and wind capacities have grown exponentially across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America. Yet fossil-fuel subsidies reached US$7 trillion in 2022, dwarfing investments in renewables. The world is constructing a renewable future with one hand while accelerating extraction with the other— a textbook case of climate schizophrenia.
Geopolitical shifts further complicate the landscape. The decline of US dominance, expansion of BRICS, and emergence of a more assertive Global South have prompted interpretations of a redistributing world center of gravity. Yet multipolarity does not automatically yield planetary responsibility. A world with many power centers is not inherently more capable of coordinated climate action than a world with one. Without shared ecological accountability, multipolarity becomes another layer of spectacle: multiplying actors without commitments, diversifying leadership without accountability, and creating the illusion of coordination while structural conditions of climate paralysis remain intact.
Arjun Appadurai and Bruno Latour reinforce this critique. Global institutions often expand horizontally — incorporating more voices and narratives — while failing to deepen vertical enforcement. COP 30 exemplifies this dynamic: the pivot to the Global South is symbolically potent but materially ambiguous. The Amazon, emblematic of planetary interdependence, cannot anchor a climate politics still tethered to fossil capitalism.
What makes this moment tragic is that humanity knows precisely what is happening. Earth-system scientists can model the consequences of every fraction of a degree of warming. This is not a crisis of knowledge — it is a crisis of political will. Noam Chomsky imagined a superintelligent extraterrestrial chronicling human history. In this parable, the being observes humans as astonishingly intelligent: capable of decoding the universe, crafting philosophical systems, building technologies, and even modeling their own collapse. Yet this intelligence is accompanied by inaction. The extraterrestrial notes that humans were not extinguished by ignorance, but by the fatal gap between cognition and action — a species whose rationality contained the seeds of self-destruction. This gap is magnified in global negotiations: knowledge exists in abundance, yet the mechanisms to translate it into enforceable action remain weak, compromised, or sidelined by competing interests.
COP 30 captures this existential essence. Humanity can diagnose its crisis with clarity yet remains unable to restructure the political and economic incentives that sustain planetary destruction. The architecture of the COP process — unanimity-driven, consensus-dependent, corporate-influenced, and state-centric — ensures that the lowest common denominator shapes outcomes. The more participants attend, the more diluted the responsibility becomes. The more visible the summit grows, the more invisible its failures appear. COP gatherings now resemble global climate expos more than engines of policy transformation. They produce spectacle rather than strategy, visibility rather than accountability, and ritual rather than action. Annual COP meetings become ceremonies affirming that the world is “doing something,” even as systemic inertia remains unbroken. Nations move horizontally across the geopolitical map — forming alliances, asserting influence, and reshaping diplomacy — while the planet sinks vertically toward irreversible thresholds.
Unless the global community finds the courage to close the gap between knowledge and action, COP 30 will be remembered not as an awakening, but as another monument to collective capitulation. Future COP negotiations must explicitly mention coal, oil, and gas and commit to a phased roadmap for their phase-out. Vague euphemisms cannot substitute for concrete exit strategies. It is imperative to establish strict conflict-of-interest rules to limit the participation of industry lobbyists, whose disproportionate presence undermines legitimacy, and tie adaptation funding to transition aid, ensuring fossil-fuel–dependent economies can cope with climate impacts while shifting toward renewable energy.
Measures are needed to create a transparent, binding multilateral fund to support workers and communities dependent on fossil fuels, with measurable benchmarks and strong accountability, making “just transition” meaningful; invest in moral and civic imagination through education, public forums, and deliberative democracy, enabling collective cognition to keep pace with existential threats; and reframe COP processes around planetary stewardship rather than power-balancing, centering ecosystems and future generations over short-term geopolitical interests.
If these transformations remain unmade, the extraterrestrial chronicler of Chomsky’s imagination will look back on COP 30 and conclude that humanity mistook pivoting for progress, performance for policy, and spectacle for survival. The world celebrated diplomacy, but the planet paid the price. Symbolic gestures are insufficient in the face of existential threats; without decisive, enforceable action, future COPs may be remembered as monuments to collective self-deception.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Magazine and its editorial team. Views published are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
