smartcybers786@gmail.com 
COP30: Five key insights from climate summit
#key #insights #climate #summit
The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) in Belem, Brazil, was characterized by deep divisions, and was aimed at preventing and combating global warming.
Basically, several countries were furious when, at COP30 in Brazil, Brazil made no plans to phase out atmospheric-warming hydrocarbons.
The summit was a moment of truth about how broken the global agreement on climate change action has become.
The following are key elements of what some have called the policeman of truth.
Brazil’s collapse raises big questions
The negative assessment stems primarily from the host country’s failure to secure global consensus on a very important issue: a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels.
Although the multilateral process remains active, many participants were unable to secure anything close to the ambitions they truly wanted.
Despite an amicable agreement for Brazil and President Luiz Aquio Lula da Silva, there is still some frustration over the holding of the meeting.
However, President Lula wanted to achieve this, and Police President André Correa do Lago felt it was possible.
President Lula wanted to present strategies from fossil fuels to world leaders ahead of the police official’s official inauguration in Belem.
Brazil has an important role to play with the roadmap’s face-saving strategy on deforestation and fossil fuels that will remain outside the police force. They were highly praised in the council chamber, but their legal status is undetermined.
EU police struggle for guidance at summit
The EU had a bad cop-out at Belem in Brazil, largely judged by its failure to secure a solid deal on fossil fuels, a result that does not represent the EU’s best moment.
They are advocating for the continued use of fossil fuels, leading to a formal agreement from which they cannot ultimately extricate themselves.
Meanwhile, the EU tried to press emerging economies to support the idea of a fossil fuel roadmap, but it had nothing to offer as an incentive for the deal.
“Overall we’re seeing an EU correlation,” said Li Shu, a climate expert.
“This partly reflects power shifts in the real world, the emerging power of core and BRICS countries, and the decline in EU influence,” he added.
Questions mount over the future of the police
The most persistent question fueled a long-running debate on the efficacy of the process after the deeply decisive COP30.
The idea of police primarily benefited humanity in the delivery of the Paris Climate Agreement. However, many participants now feel that it lacks a compelling mission after this massive feat.
Questions about how countries can reach carbon neutrality have never been more critical, and yet the COP process seems far removed from the daily lives of billions of people.
It’s an agreement that comes from someone else, and we’re not in that situation anymore.
Brazil has recognized some of these problems, and has sought to create an “implementation police” and focus heavily on the energy agenda.
Commercial initiatives return to the spotlight
Global trade has become one of the areas receiving increasing recognition and formal integration into international policy debates.
Trade was an effort to raise in every negotiating room, and is now being recognized as a central and indispensable element of effective climate action.
The European Union is proposing to introduce broader taxes on some high-carbon products such as steel, fertiliser, cement, and aluminum and aluminum and many of its trading partners, including China, India and Saudi Arabia, are not satisfied.
They believed the move was unjustified, calling it “one-sided” in technical terms, arguing that it would make the goods it sells in Europe more expensive and less competitive.
According to the Europeans, the move is not about stifling trade but about pricing planet-warming gas emissions to combat climate change.
However, the European Union already assesses a fee to its manufacturers for their emissions, and border taxes protect domestic producers from cheap imports from abroad.
The issue was ameliorated in Brazil with a classic police compromise, and the talks will continue into future negotiations.
The final agreement sets the agenda for future UN climate talks, requiring governments to take specific actions to achieve better outcomes.
The power to step back and be quiet
Recent developments have shown that the world’s two largest carbon emitters, China and the United States, have similar impacts on this cop but achieve them in different ways.
US President Donald Trump stayed away, while Russia, albeit a silent participant, led the disruption of the roadmaps.
China has remained silent, while Saudi Arabia and other prominent oil producers have been unrelenting in their efforts to curb fossil fuels.
According to experts, China’s business is doing better, surpassing the US, which is still mired in fossil fuel sales.
Nevertheless, the summit gave a significant boost to climate finance and institutional justice, but failed to secure a global plan to end the fossil fuel era.
