Motaher Hossain :
Across local, regional, sub-regional and international forums, ongoing discussions continue on what must be done to protect the planet and humanity.
Among the general public and civil society, frustration is increasingly visible.
Humanity and the Earth are heading toward an inevitable catastrophe, largely due to the deliberate inaction of leaders from fossil-fuel-rich and oil-producing countries.
This has become especially clear after the recently concluded COP30, which failed to achieve visible progress on crucial issues such as climate finance, adaptation funding, and reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
Relevant organizations say that strong opposition and reluctance from major emitting countries prevented expected achievements.
In this situation, climate experts warn that delayed decisions on adaptation finance will pose additional risks for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), who are already facing severe climate impacts.
Concerns have deepened particularly because COP30 failed to provide a clear plan to replenish the Adaptation Fund.
This delay will weaken the climate-resilience efforts of vulnerable nations and obstruct early-warning systems, coastal protection, and climate-resilient agriculture.
LDC representatives stated that without adequate and easily accessible finance, adaptation gaps will widen, and countries will face further devastation from losses and damage.
The call for voluntarily reducing fossil-fuel use is being widely viewed as an attempt to avoid addressing the root problem. Without effective measures to keep carbon emissions within the 1.5°C limit, the world is now heading toward a 3°C temperature rise.
Additionally, the goal of tripling adaptation finance has been delayed from 2030 to 2035-without any baseline.
This is being perceived as a strategy by developed nations to avoid responsibility, which is further deepening the existential crisis for LDCs and small island states.
COP30 also failed to secure any financial commitment from developed countries, and there is uncertainty about future commitments as well. Moreover, much of the existing climate finance is loan-based.
Therefore, Bangladesh must continue strong advocacy at the international level to ensure fair and justice-based climate financing.
Climate experts advise that instead of relying solely on the hopes of financial support from developed countries, Bangladesh should strengthen local adaptation capacity using its own resources.
For this, skilled and responsible government representatives are needed on the global stage, but Bangladesh remains behind.
It must be remembered that without guaranteed climate finance, transitioning away from fossil fuels is not possible.
The European Union has not yet submitted its own GHGI-03, yet they are discussing monitoring-which is laughable. Without a clear baseline, financing decisions are meaningless.
Meanwhile, meaningful discussions on reducing fossil-fuel use were nearly forbidden at COP30.
Under the influence of energy lobbies, climate discussions have shifted from rights-based approaches to corporate-centric negotiations, and the process has become bureaucratic. The time has come to restructure the COP process based on climate justice.
At the same time, the rights-based demands of climate-vulnerable communities and the call to reduce fossil-fuel use must be continued. Bangladesh must also ensure transparency and strong political commitment in its own climate-finance frameworks.
Unfortunately, most climate finance still comes as loans. Research shows that for every $5 of climate finance, countries must repay $7. Bangladesh’s per-capita climate debt is now $80.
Therefore, instead of relying heavily on debt-based plans, Bangladesh must expand domestic climate finance by harnessing the potential of its blue economy. A mandatory timeline for phasing out fossil fuels is essential.
Transparency and accountability in climate finance must be guaranteed, and a more accountable global framework must include the demands of affected communities.
Although COP30, held in Belém, Brazil, generated global attention and high expectations-especially being the first major climate summit in the Amazon region-it delivered more stagnation and compromise than progress.
The political limitations, economic interests, and lack of future commitments from major emitting countries brought COP30’s achievements close to zero.
Civil society organizations working on climate justice, disaster-risk reduction, indigenous rights, biodiversity, and humanitarian protection consider COP30 a failure.
They argue that the problem is not a lack of global leadership, but the influence of powerful lobby groups and the political influence of the fossil-fuel industry, which weaken international climate commitments.
Many rapidly industrializing countries favored delaying the energy-transition process. As a result, the decisions fell far short of the expectations of environmental advocates and affected communities.
In previous COPs-particularly COP27 and COP28-high-income countries pledged $100 billion annually but failed to deliver a substantial portion of it. COP30 did not introduce any new mechanism to fill this gap.
A financial framework for the Global Goal on Adaptation was discussed, but it lacks specific funding, timelines, transparency, and accountability.
Likewise, although the administrative structure of the Loss and Damage Fund progressed somewhat, the fund remains severely under-financed. Experts say vulnerable countries need at least $300 billion annually, while the fund holds only a tiny fraction of that amount.
There were expectations that a COP held in a vast carbon sink like the Amazon would elevate nature-based solutions. Although discussions included halting deforestation, restoration programs, and protecting indigenous land rights, no binding international framework was established.
More than 400 environmental organizations, human-rights groups, research institutions, and indigenous networks issued a joint statement describing COP30 as a missed opportunity. They said the summit failed to set a clear timeline for ending fossil fuels or present a just-transition roadmap.
Major countries surrendered to pressure from fossil-fuel companies. Vulnerable and poor nations fell further behind on adaptation and loss-and-damage, and their voices were not sufficiently reflected in decision-making. No clear international policy was adopted to protect communities resisting land grabs, deforestation, and environmentally destructive projects.
Global youth climate activists also declared COP30 a failure from a climate-justice perspective. They argued that the goals are too slow, the commitments misleading, and implementation nearly nonexistent. The needs of future generations are being repeatedly ignored.
The primary reason behind COP30’s weaknesses is the reluctance of major emitting countries. The firm stance of the United States, China, India, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and others weakened proposals for ending fossil-fuel use. Fossil-fuel lobbying was also highly visible at COP30.
Economic recession and political instability in many developed nations further reduced climate finance and international cooperation.
International tensions-especially U.S.-China rivalry, Europe’s energy insecurity, and Middle-East geopolitical instability-have also weakened global climate diplomacy.
Some positive outcomes emerged: renewed regional cooperation on protecting the Amazon rainforest, modest strengthening of the adaptation-planning assessment framework, and commitments to increase investment in renewable energy-though non-binding.
Based on COP30’s outcomes, civil society identifies the following priorities for future COP negotiations:
Key Priorities Going Forward
· Adoption of a mandatory global policy for complete fossil-fuel phase-out, with clear timelines.
· Country-specific roadmaps to end coal, oil, and gas.
· Carbon capture and offsets cannot be used as primary solutions, as they delay real emission reductions.
· Wealthy nations must provide at least $600-700 billion annually after 2025-far beyond the earlier $100 billion pledge.
· Adaptation finance must be doubled and entirely grant-based, not loan-based.
· A global transparency framework must reveal who receives climate funds and how they are used.
· Significant contributions to the Loss and Damage Fund through new mechanisms such as a global carbon tax, maritime-shipping tax, and levies on major polluters.·Funds must reach the actual affected communities.
· Greater access to technology for developing countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and Papua New Guinea-through mandatory technology transfer and knowledge-sharing.
· Patent waivers and frameworks for global exchange of green technologies.
· Recognition of indigenous rights and traditional knowledge.
Indigenous peoples of the Amazon and around the world are the primary guardians of nature. Therefore, their direct participation in decision-making and integration of their traditional knowledge into climate solutions is essential. These must become binding commitments in future COPs.
The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue; it is inseparably linked to social, economic, livelihood and political inequalities. Thus, the experiences of women, children, marginalized communities, vulnerable workers, migrants and climate-displaced people must be included in policy frameworks.
Despite its limitations, COP30 delivered some positive messages: attempts to operationalize the Loss and Damage Fund and renewed commitments for protecting the Amazon offer hope. Climate change is not a problem of the distant future-it requires immediate action.
It is hoped that strong political leadership, active citizen-pressure, and social movements will make future COP summits effective, meaningful, and aligned with public expectations.
(Motaher Hossain: Editor – ClimateJournal24.com General Secretary – Bangladesh Climate Change Journalist Forum (BCCJF) 06 December 2025)
