336: Inside COP: Friday Morning in Belém - what’s changed and why it matters
In this emergency episode the team talks through the new COP30 draft text, what changed overnight, and why so many countries are unhappy.
Related Episodes
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
About this episode
It’s Friday morning in Belém and COP30 is moving fast. After yesterday’s fire and the overnight closure of the venue, the Brazilian Presidency worked through the night and released a new draft text early this morning. It has immediately triggered significant pushback.
In this emergency episode the team talks through what changed overnight, and why so many countries are unhappy. Christiana Figueres highlights how the new text removes the roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels and for halting deforestation, and why that has triggered such a strong response.
The mood on the ground has shifted. Delegates are back after the disruption yesterday, rested just enough to be energised, and preparing to make their views known in plenary. The Presidency now has to listen, absorb, and decide how far it can move.
This is our Friday morning take on a rapidly changing situation, the snapshot before whatever comes next. Follow us on social media across the day for real time updates from Belém.
Instagram @outrageoptimism
LinkedIn @outrageoptimism
Learn more:
📣 Read the latest draft of the Political Package
🧩 Use this helpful cheatsheet on how to read a COP text
🌍 Check out the official COP30 website for background and announcements
🎤 What do you want to hear on Inside COP? Ask us on SpeakPipe or on our socials where you can also see more behind the scenes moments and to watch our videos:
Instagram @outrageoptimism
LinkedIn @outrageoptimism
Or via this form.
Lead Producer: Ben Weaver-Hincks
Planning Producer: Caitlin Hanrahan
Edited by: Miles Martignoni
Exec Producer: Ellie Clifford
With thanks to Groundswell and Global Optimism.
This is a Persephonica production for Global Optimism and is part of the Acast Creator Network.
Full Transcript
Transcript generated by AI. While we aim for accuracy, errors may still occur. Please refer to the episode’s audio for the definitive version
Paul Dickinson: [00:00:03] Hello and welcome to Inside Cop. Today, on the last day of the formal negotiations. Maybe not.Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:00:11] One of the last days. Yeah.
Paul Dickinson: [00:00:12] We take stock of where we are or where we are not. Thanks for being here. Okay. The last day of the formal negotiations. But maybe not. Christiana, where are we today?
Christiana Figueres: [00:00:27] Well, after the fire yesterday and the closing of the venue, it was quite predictable that first of all, negotiators were exhausted and had to take a break, but also very predictable that the presidency would work overnight, as they obviously did, to put a new revised version of the text on the table, which they did early this morning. This is not a presidency that folds because they had a fire. Shocking and traumatizing as the fire was for many people who were there, but they just camped out wherever and worked on a new text. Now, regrettably, in part because some negotiating time has been lost, in part because they really do want an agreed outcome. The new text that they have put on the table is a very common denominator text about most, if not all, issues. The roadmap on fossil fuels on transitioning away is no longer mentioned. The roadmap on halting deforestation is no longer mentioned. The strong language on finance and on adaptation is gone. So I would say all of the courageous steps forward for the process have actually been shaved down and are being expressed at what we call de minimis. So minimum common denominator. An understandable strategy on the part of the presidency. Now of course, what that has meant is that because negotiators may be slept a little bit more last night, they have come back with much more energy.
Christiana Figueres: [00:02:15] And there are many countries that are absolutely complaining, pushing back and saying there's no way, there's no way that they're going to go for a tax that is only a common denominator text. And they're pushing very, very hard for the roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels to be put back in the roadmap for halting deforestation. A decent text on adaptation, a decent text on finance. So all of the predictable components and a very a very important push. Now they are also already thinking beyond the cop. So Colombia has already which is the country that is leading on the both deforestation and transitioning away from fossil fuels. Listeners will hopefully know that Colombia is a fossil fuel exporter. So very interesting that they are taking the lead in this. They have already offered and have been taken up on their offer to host an international conference in April of next year to begin to put the bones on what a transition away from fossil fuels means. So they're already working on further steps to operationalize what they want as a political decision here. But let's remember this is not a legally binding decision. It is a political signal. And there are many countries who want a much more robust political signal.
Fiona McRaith: [00:03:40] So the draft text that dropped this morning came as quite a surprise, as I understand to many, because there were things that had a lot of momentum going into negotiations until this draft that are no longer there. Two of the most notable ones perhaps to call out are what we're both being called roadmaps one on the transition away from fossil fuels and one on deforestation, the transition away from fossil fuels. This is something that we chatted briefly about with Jennifer Morgan earlier this week on the podcast, and it's essentially a roadmap helps you chart up from where we are to where you want to go. And as I understand it, it's a forum for different countries with different perspectives and relationships to fossil fuels. So some exporter countries, some importer countries coming together to actually talk about and negotiate what it looks like to be phasing out and transitioning away from fossil fuels. We know that this is necessary for decarbonization to meet NDCs to achieve 1.5°C. And that doesn't mean it's easy, but the need for it is relatively simple and clear. There are different perspectives. I mean, you can kind of really oversimplify them by saying that there are countries whose economies depend on fossil fuels and don't feel ready to phase out at all. A lot of these, you know, have very strong positions against this happening and are probably pleased with the text. And then there are a number of them, including the most vulnerable, who are deeply who may still be importing or in some cases exporting fossil fuels, but fully recognize the need to, in this multilateral forum, talk about how are we actually going to achieve something that we all committed to in Dubai, which was the cop in 2023?
Paul Dickinson: [00:05:22] Yeah. I mean, the thing I would add is, you know, ultimately this is about kind of roadmaps for policies that will support this kind of process. I mean, I was very gushing about the UC ban, which I sort of kind of slightly regret because someone pointed out to me that the African Climate Foundation in London School of Economics were suggesting that Cbam could end up costing the continent of Africa $25 billion a year. So there's obviously stuff that's got to get ironed out here. But, you know, ultimately governments, you know, collaborate on policies that, you know, reduce the combustion of coal, oil and gas. And Cbam is one of those. There are 101,000 other policy and regulatory measures. The huge one would be phasing out of the sale of fossil fuel cars, which is, you know, a huge issue in many, many countries. And and there are so many others. And it's ultimately sort of saying, let's get granular about that. I think that's what the roadmap would be over time. And the commitment that people are looking for now is to establish that process.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:06:21] In the same way. This fee is very ably described. The roadmap from fossil fuels, as we heard at the beginning, and no one quite understood it at the beginning, the intention to make this a couple of implementation. I think what's been a common thread at this cop is that there's been an attempt to talk, not about what we're going to do, but how we're going to do it. And that's the point of a roadmap, right? And whether it's deforestation or whether it's fossil fuels, it's the attempt to put together a framework and a mechanism that facilitates conversation and commitments to make practical steps towards getting to where we need to go for a long time, going back to before 2015. We've seen shared declarations on deforestation. Most of them don't actually deliver something. And I think the Brazilians saw that. And the intention of these roadmaps is to say, okay, let's not come together and say X amount of deforestation stopped by this this day, but let's put a process in place that actually determines how we're going to make this happen. And I think that's something we should all applaud and regret that it's no longer in the text in the way that it needs to be.
Paul Dickinson: [00:07:15] Just to help listeners understand, help me understand. There's kind of two possibilities. An agreed text that is hopefully as progressive and as forward and audacious as possible. But there's also is there a risk that that something wouldn't be agreed and then there'd be a kind of, you know, like a how can I put it a schism in the final outcome?
Christiana Figueres: [00:07:35] Oh, the Brazilian presidency is not going to allow that. That that is not even a contemplation. Uh, let's remember, they are the diplomats of the world. They are not going to walk away from a no text. There's no way. Let's just take that off the table. Load More
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:07:55] And Christiana given, given that you said they are the diplomats of the world, we've been very impressed with the Brazilian presidency right from the start with their strategy of how they've put this cop together. And so to me, who is less steeped in the negotiations than you, this step to put a de minimis text out at this point seems sort of inexplicable. Why? Why not put out an ambitious text and allow those countries who don't want that to be agreed to be exposed in the plenary as standing against these things that the world needs? What what could the negotiation strategy from such accomplished diplomats be like? Why take this step? We know they want an ambitious outcome, so why do this?
Christiana Figueres: [00:08:29] Well, they want an ambitious outcome, but they have to put something on the table. That is the collective desire of everyone, right? They I mean, as far as their. If they could write this, it would look very different. They are trying to find common ground. Now, there is, as you say, two ways to go about this. When you're running out of time, you could put a text on the table that goes much farther beyond what countries who want to delay climate action want, or so it could be overly ambitious or overly ambitious, according to the countries that look at this. They have chosen not to follow the overly ambitious draft, but rather to go to the underly ambitious. If underly were an adverb, that's what it would be. The underly ambitious draft. What that provokes, of course, is this reaction that we're seeing today from countries who are just not willing to go. It is possible. That possible? I have no idea. I stand to be corrected. It is possible that the Brazilians need that push. And Tom and Paul, both of you who were in Paris with me, will remember the important push in the last minute of the high ambition coalition ministers who came in arm in arm and just pushed for 1.5 to be embedded in the text. That was a last minute high ambition push.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:10:04] Wasn't that am I remembering right, that they intervened to save something that was already in the text not to try and get something new in?
Christiana Figueres: [00:10:11] Yeah, but the 1.5 was bracketed, was.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:10:13] Bracketed, but it was there at least.
Christiana Figueres: [00:10:15] Yeah, yeah, yeah. But they they wanted to make sure that it wasn't lost. Yeah. They wanted to make sure that it wasn't lost. So so I mean that was well that was then. And now here we are ten years later. Um, the point is that it is very predictable that a text like this one would provoke the pushback that we're seeing. And now it's going to be really interesting because at 10:00, the Cop presidency has called for a plenary to hear the reactions of countries. So stay tuned. We will be following that, and they will then take the statements that are made and go back to the drawing board and try to put another text on the table.
Paul Dickinson: [00:11:02] Can I ask a final question, really, which is you've described this before as a political agreement. So it's a kind of political communication from the whole of the conference. It's not to sort of like an agreement like the Paris Agreement or something like that. This is this is essentially something that sets the tone for governments to, to, to continue with their implementation in the years ahead. Is that right?
Christiana Figueres: [00:11:22] Yes. Correct. It is not a legally binding agreement. It is a political agreed political statement. It because the other option, by the way, is a political statement on the part of the Cop presidency on their own there. I mean, that is an option. But I doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt that they're going to want to do that. They want an agreed outcome.
Fiona McRaith: [00:11:45] One of the things we've talked a lot on the Inside Cop special series is the fact that the the economy, the outside of this process, the real economy, is is marching on, and the importance of these two weeks and the negotiated outcomes to set a signal to that. So how do you three see that interplay happening here? Like what do you do you think that will have an outcome on how businesses, for example, respond? Or do you think that it's the evidence is so set that investment in green technologies and the new industrial future will will just continue on?
Christiana Figueres: [00:12:21] Well, my sense interested in what Paul and Tom say, my sense is that if there's no political signal on a transition away from fossil fuels, let's just entertain that for a moment. That is not going to starve the decarbonization, you know, the decarbonization of the economy and the technologies are just moving forward simply because of the economic imperative, Period, so it's not going to stop even if there were no decision. But if there is a strong political signal in the outcome of this Cop, that helps. It's a little nudge. It's a little push. So that is what countries want. They want the nudge. They want the push. It is, again, not legally binding to anyone, but they want the push to accelerate that transition even faster because as we know, we are far behind.
Paul Dickinson: [00:13:13] Yeah. I mean, the only thing I would add is you just see these technologies are just better in so many different regards. You know, the electric vehicle doesn't, you know, produce gigantic amounts of heat. And, you know, the efficiency of electricity as everything becomes electrified. So the technology and business are really all going in one direction. But it's all about the speed.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:13:32] I mean, yeah, we are transitioning away from fossil fuels. The question is this can prevent backsliding and enable us to keep moving ahead. I have one more question for you, Kristin. And then I think we should let you go, because I know you've got lots of different interviews to do. It seems to me, and, you know, as a relative outsider, certainly in this corp, that it's so much easier to defend something that's there rather than pushed to have something put back in. So I'm prepared to acknowledge that maybe the Brazilians have a strategy that I don't know about, but it seems a real shame that we've gone to de minimis at this point. We'll see what happens.
Christiana Figueres: [00:14:00] Well, absolutely, because it was there in the previous text.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:14:04] It's been there all along. Right? Yeah. Can you give us any examples of previous cops where this strategy of going to a de minimis text proved to be the right strategy, because it triggered coalitions of progressive countries to step up and push for something to be reinserted.
Christiana Figueres: [00:14:20] Well, de minimis is in the eyes of the beholder.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:14:23] Okay.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:14:23] Yeah. That's true.
Christiana Figueres: [00:14:28] I would say that the that the version of the Paris Agreement that had the 1.5 still in brackets was de minimis in the eyes of the High Ambition coalition. It was way too ambitious in the eyes of others.
Paul Dickinson: [00:14:42] Diplomacy.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:14:44] I think I think we should probably leave it there, and I think.
Christiana Figueres: [00:14:45] But before we leave it, can we invite Paul and Fi, who are on the ground to walk around? If you have the energy today with your roving mics and just get a sense of where people are after the fires, coming back to get back in the saddle and tame this horse that you know wants to run away without, uh, without much responsibility. I, we would just be interested in what people are saying. So if you can walk around with a roving mic, that would be great.
Fiona McRaith: [00:15:14] So I think with that charge from Christiana and those of you following along on socials, please do follow us there because we will bring you more real time updates. We're not yet sure when we'll come back with the next podcast, because it kind of depends on where the negotiations go. So stay tuned on socials and uh, yeah, bye for now.
Christiana Figueres: [00:15:33] Awesome.
Paul Dickinson: [00:15:33] Bye for.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:15:34] Now. Bye.
Christiana Figueres: [00:08:29] Well, they want an ambitious outcome, but they have to put something on the table. That is the collective desire of everyone, right? They I mean, as far as their. If they could write this, it would look very different. They are trying to find common ground. Now, there is, as you say, two ways to go about this. When you're running out of time, you could put a text on the table that goes much farther beyond what countries who want to delay climate action want, or so it could be overly ambitious or overly ambitious, according to the countries that look at this. They have chosen not to follow the overly ambitious draft, but rather to go to the underly ambitious. If underly were an adverb, that's what it would be. The underly ambitious draft. What that provokes, of course, is this reaction that we're seeing today from countries who are just not willing to go. It is possible. That possible? I have no idea. I stand to be corrected. It is possible that the Brazilians need that push. And Tom and Paul, both of you who were in Paris with me, will remember the important push in the last minute of the high ambition coalition ministers who came in arm in arm and just pushed for 1.5 to be embedded in the text. That was a last minute high ambition push.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:10:04] Wasn't that am I remembering right, that they intervened to save something that was already in the text not to try and get something new in?
Christiana Figueres: [00:10:11] Yeah, but the 1.5 was bracketed, was.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:10:13] Bracketed, but it was there at least.
Christiana Figueres: [00:10:15] Yeah, yeah, yeah. But they they wanted to make sure that it wasn't lost. Yeah. They wanted to make sure that it wasn't lost. So so I mean that was well that was then. And now here we are ten years later. Um, the point is that it is very predictable that a text like this one would provoke the pushback that we're seeing. And now it's going to be really interesting because at 10:00, the Cop presidency has called for a plenary to hear the reactions of countries. So stay tuned. We will be following that, and they will then take the statements that are made and go back to the drawing board and try to put another text on the table.
Paul Dickinson: [00:11:02] Can I ask a final question, really, which is you've described this before as a political agreement. So it's a kind of political communication from the whole of the conference. It's not to sort of like an agreement like the Paris Agreement or something like that. This is this is essentially something that sets the tone for governments to, to, to continue with their implementation in the years ahead. Is that right?
Christiana Figueres: [00:11:22] Yes. Correct. It is not a legally binding agreement. It is a political agreed political statement. It because the other option, by the way, is a political statement on the part of the Cop presidency on their own there. I mean, that is an option. But I doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt that they're going to want to do that. They want an agreed outcome.
Fiona McRaith: [00:11:45] One of the things we've talked a lot on the Inside Cop special series is the fact that the the economy, the outside of this process, the real economy, is is marching on, and the importance of these two weeks and the negotiated outcomes to set a signal to that. So how do you three see that interplay happening here? Like what do you do you think that will have an outcome on how businesses, for example, respond? Or do you think that it's the evidence is so set that investment in green technologies and the new industrial future will will just continue on?
Christiana Figueres: [00:12:21] Well, my sense interested in what Paul and Tom say, my sense is that if there's no political signal on a transition away from fossil fuels, let's just entertain that for a moment. That is not going to starve the decarbonization, you know, the decarbonization of the economy and the technologies are just moving forward simply because of the economic imperative, Period, so it's not going to stop even if there were no decision. But if there is a strong political signal in the outcome of this Cop, that helps. It's a little nudge. It's a little push. So that is what countries want. They want the nudge. They want the push. It is, again, not legally binding to anyone, but they want the push to accelerate that transition even faster because as we know, we are far behind.
Paul Dickinson: [00:13:13] Yeah. I mean, the only thing I would add is you just see these technologies are just better in so many different regards. You know, the electric vehicle doesn't, you know, produce gigantic amounts of heat. And, you know, the efficiency of electricity as everything becomes electrified. So the technology and business are really all going in one direction. But it's all about the speed.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:13:32] I mean, yeah, we are transitioning away from fossil fuels. The question is this can prevent backsliding and enable us to keep moving ahead. I have one more question for you, Kristin. And then I think we should let you go, because I know you've got lots of different interviews to do. It seems to me, and, you know, as a relative outsider, certainly in this corp, that it's so much easier to defend something that's there rather than pushed to have something put back in. So I'm prepared to acknowledge that maybe the Brazilians have a strategy that I don't know about, but it seems a real shame that we've gone to de minimis at this point. We'll see what happens.
Christiana Figueres: [00:14:00] Well, absolutely, because it was there in the previous text.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:14:04] It's been there all along. Right? Yeah. Can you give us any examples of previous cops where this strategy of going to a de minimis text proved to be the right strategy, because it triggered coalitions of progressive countries to step up and push for something to be reinserted.
Christiana Figueres: [00:14:20] Well, de minimis is in the eyes of the beholder.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:14:23] Okay.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:14:23] Yeah. That's true.
Christiana Figueres: [00:14:28] I would say that the that the version of the Paris Agreement that had the 1.5 still in brackets was de minimis in the eyes of the High Ambition coalition. It was way too ambitious in the eyes of others.
Paul Dickinson: [00:14:42] Diplomacy.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:14:44] I think I think we should probably leave it there, and I think.
Christiana Figueres: [00:14:45] But before we leave it, can we invite Paul and Fi, who are on the ground to walk around? If you have the energy today with your roving mics and just get a sense of where people are after the fires, coming back to get back in the saddle and tame this horse that you know wants to run away without, uh, without much responsibility. I, we would just be interested in what people are saying. So if you can walk around with a roving mic, that would be great.
Fiona McRaith: [00:15:14] So I think with that charge from Christiana and those of you following along on socials, please do follow us there because we will bring you more real time updates. We're not yet sure when we'll come back with the next podcast, because it kind of depends on where the negotiations go. So stay tuned on socials and uh, yeah, bye for now.
Christiana Figueres: [00:15:33] Awesome.
Paul Dickinson: [00:15:33] Bye for.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: [00:15:34] Now. Bye.
