COP30 may move from formal negotiations to effective action

Brazil has the chance to consolidate its position as a key player in global climate negotiations, says Thelma Krug, coordinator of the Scientific Council for the event scheduled for November in Belém.

By Heitor Shimizu and Elton Alisson  |  Agência FAPESP – The 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) may move from formal negotiations to effective action, with developing countries taking the lead, according to Thelma Krug. She is the coordinator of the Scientific Council for the event, which is scheduled to take place in November in Belém, in the state of Pará, Brazil.

Krug, a retired researcher from the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) who was vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 2015 to 2022, sees the event in Belém as an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of the Amazon to the world.

Despite the challenges, Krug remains optimistic: “Even if we exceed the 1.5 °C global warming limit, it’ll still be possible to reverse this scenario by the end of the century, provided we take ambitious and rapid action. Of course, the greater the excess, the more difficult it’ll be to reverse.” The scientist believes that if multilateralism is expanded, especially with the leadership of developing countries, it will be possible to strengthen international cooperation, even in the absence of the United States from the negotiations. “It’s worth noting that, despite absence of the federal government, many U.S. states remain active on the climate agenda and will be at COP30.”

(Turn on subtitles in English)

Agência FAPESP – In November, Brazil will host a COP for the first time, which will also be in the Amazon. How significant is this, not only for the country, but for the world?
Thelma Krug – COP30 represents a series of strategic opportunities for Brazil. First, it’s a concrete chance to consolidate the country as a central player in global climate negotiations. Brazilian diplomacy is widely recognized for its competence, and that makes a significant difference in multilateral forums. With COP30, we’ll have the chance to move from formal negotiations to effective action. Brazil also has relevant experiences to share, such as its leadership in clean energy and efforts aimed at zero deforestation in the Amazon. In addition, the country has one of the most robust environmental laws in the world, which can represent a competitive advantage in the international market for sustainable goods and services. Of course, there are points of concern, such as the bill that reduces requirements for environmental licensing. This greatly weakens environmental protection at a time when the country is about to host COP, which will bring even more visibility to the issue. So, while the country has many positive points to show, we’re currently experiencing a difficult period of environmental fragility that shouldn’t be brought to the fore at this time. COP30 is a unique opportunity to reduce global ignorance about the importance – and the very size – of the Amazon. I hope that, as they fly over the region on their way to Belém, the delegates will take a close look at that veritable green ocean. Despite deforestation and degradation, a huge part of the forest is still preserved. May that experience serve to raise awareness and mobilize international support for the funds that will be discussed during COP – not only for the conservation of the Amazon, but also for the world’s other tropical forests. We’ll be able to show the world an impressive environment from an ecological point of view, which is our greatest forest resource, but also the social and structural reality of the Amazon and Belém. We’ll leave behind the setting of grandiose and luxurious COPs, such as those held in Dubai [in the United Arab Emirates] or Baku [in Azerbaijan], to immerse ourselves in a reality that reflects what should really be the focus of the conference: the vulnerability of developing countries and local communities and the need to value traditional knowledge. In addition to the environmental services provided by the forest, it’s essential to recognize that the basis of Amazonian knowledge also lies in the wisdom of indigenous peoples and traditional communities.

Agência FAPESP – Could you explain what the Climate Action Agenda and the Global Stocktake are and why they are important?
Krug – Until recently, it was common for COPs to assign responsibility for solving the climate crisis exclusively to governments. The so-called Climate Action Agenda emerged as an important innovation in this scenario. Unlike formal COP negotiations, which require consensus among the 196 signatory countries, the Action Agenda is more flexible in nature and allows for practical progress even without the full engagement of all countries. At COP30, the Agenda broadens the scope of responsibility beyond governments to involve all of civil society – the private sector, the third sector, local communities. In this context, it’s important to recognize the role of Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, designated president of COP30, who proposed the “agenda task force,” a collective and inclusive construction so that no one is left out. The result is the COP30 Action Agenda, which is structured around six thematic axes: “Energy, Industry, and Transportation Transition”; “Preservation of Forests, Oceans, and Biodiversity”; “Transformation of Agriculture and Food Systems”; “Building Resilience for Cities, Infrastructure, and Water”; “Promotion of Human and Social Development”; and “Cross-cutting Enablers and Accelerators.” Within these axes, 30 priority actions were identified, such as tripling renewable energy generation, phasing out fossil fuels, combating deforestation, promoting sustainable agriculture, and enabling climate finance mechanisms. These initiatives are directly linked to the Global Stocktake, one of the pillars of the Paris Agreement. This mechanism, whose first edition was published in 2023 and will be updated every five years, assesses what countries are effectively doing in terms of mitigation, adaptation, and climate resilience. It’s a collective diagnosis of global climate action. The first Global Stocktake revealed a worrying fact: although there’s been progress, it’s still insufficient to put the world on a path compatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement. In other words, we’re failing to limit global warming to levels that significantly reduce the risks of extreme events – such as severe droughts, floods, and heat waves – which are likely to become increasingly frequent and intense as a result of global warming caused by human actions. These impacts are directly linked to greenhouse gas emissions from sectors such as energy, industrial processes, agriculture, and land use – with emphasis on deforestation, which contributes heavily to carbon dioxide emissions – and the waste sector, for example, landfills, which release large amounts of methane. All these factors make up a scenario that requires a comprehensive and integrated response. The Global Stocktake also analyzes compliance with Nationally Determined Contributions [NDCs] – each country’s voluntary commitments to reduce emissions by specific deadlines, such as 2025, 2030, and 2035. These commitments must be progressively more ambitious, as stipulated in the Paris Agreement itself, which requires a constant increase in the level of climate ambition. The 2023 Stocktake made it clear that, even with ongoing efforts, global emissions are still not being reduced at the speed and scale needed to keep global warming well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels – let alone to achieve the goal of limiting the increase to 1.5 °C. In addition to temperature targets, the Global Stocktake also considers other essential elements of the Paris Agreement: adaptation, climate justice, international financing, and the promotion of a just transition.

Agência FAPESP – Unlike other scientists, you remain hopeful that the world will be able to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5 °C. Why are you so optimistic?
Krug – First, I believe there was a certain misunderstanding in 2024, a very atypical year. For the first time, we exceeded the 1.5 °C mark for global average temperature increase, reaching 1.6 °C – which raised concerns and even the mistaken impression that the 1.5 °C target was already irretrievably compromised. But that isn’t quite the case. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], the leading scientific authority on the subject, bases its conclusions on observational data. These data are collected from multiple reliable sources and allow for robust assessment of trends. The IPCC works with historical series spanning 20 to 30 years and makes estimates based on changes in the global average temperature trend, whether it’s actually changing, and how it’s changing. In a 20-year series, an atypical year – such as 2024 – is diluted in the long-term average. The problem is that we’re seeing consecutive decades of warmer temperatures. The latest IPCC report, published in 2022, showed that the previous four decades were successively warmer – and everything indicates that the next one will also follow that trend. In other words, atypical years may become normal. Even before a new IPCC report, agencies such as the World Meteorological Organization estimate that we’re now about 1.3 °C above the pre-industrial average. That reinforces concerns that the window for limiting warming to 1.5 °C is closing very quickly. Despite that, I remain optimistic – which isn’t shared by some fellow scientists – that even if we exceed the limit, it’ll still be possible to reverse that scenario by the end of the century, provided we take ambitious and rapid action. Of course, the greater the excess, the more difficult it’ll be to reverse. My optimism is also sustained when I look at COP30 as a concrete opportunity to accelerate global climate action. I see growing involvement from various countries and actors – and that helps me remain hopeful.

Agência FAPESP – Ten years after the signing of the Paris Agreement, multilateral agreements on crucial issues – such as limiting greenhouse gas emissions – have become increasingly difficult to implement. In this sense, what can we expect from the climate negotiations at COP30?
Krug – I think COP30 will be the COP of change. The COP of action. That’s my expectation: that we’ll finally be able to make concrete progress. Of course, there are profound challenges. Starting with developing countries, which are the least responsible for historical greenhouse gas emissions. They’ve contributed very little to global warming and, as they’re in the process of development, they have the opportunity to choose cleaner technologies and build their energy matrices sustainably from the outset – something that industrialized countries haven’t done in the past. These opportunities are more accessible. Sources such as solar and wind energy have become cheaper and more viable. Often, even without direct environmental motivation, people adopt these alternatives for economic reasons. One example: I have a family member who recently installed solar panels. When I asked if it was out of concern for climate change, the answer was, “No, it’s because of the electricity bill.” This shows that practical decisions can also contribute to addressing the problem, even if they don’t stem from full climate awareness. That highlights another point: the difficulty of communication. For many, climate change is still an abstraction. People aren’t deniers, but they simply don’t see the problem in concrete terms in their daily lives. Therefore, it’s essential to improve the way we communicate science, expanding the network of actors who help disseminate information in a clear, accurate, and accessible way. This communication shouldn’t come only from governments – scientists also have a crucial role to play in this task. Another example is the dialogue with the agribusiness sector. When we talk about changes in rainfall patterns or rising temperatures, based on scientific models, the reaction is often one of skepticism, because the impacts aren’t immediately felt. Many climate actions are preventive in nature – and that makes them difficult to accept. Farmers may never see the impact they’ve avoided by adopting resilient measures, precisely because the anticipatory action worked. The same reasoning applies to developed countries. Many of them have energy matrices based on fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas. For these countries, the transition to renewable energy isn’t simple, especially when we consider the need for climate justice. We’ve seen positive signs. Today, for example, the costs of renewable sources are already, in many cases, lower than those of fossil fuels. This can accelerate the energy transition. But we need to ensure that this change is fair and equitable. And that’s one of the great challenges of COP30: strengthening the commitment to a transition that’s faster, but also takes inequalities into account, so that no one is left behind.

Agência FAPESP – In this transition scenario, what is the impact of the absence or lack of support at COP30 from the United States, which is not only the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, but also the largest producer of scientific and science-related information?
Krug – That question leads directly to the issue of multilateralism. Many people ask me what would be considered a “success” at COP30. I’m quite cautious about this, because I find it difficult to measure success. Failure, on the other hand, is easier to identify – as we saw at the previous COP, where there were high expectations for climate finance, but the resources put on the table fell far short of expectations. When high expectations are created and they aren’t met, the feeling of failure is inevitable. That’s why it’s important to have realistic expectations. That way, any progress can be understood as a victory. COPs work a bit like homeopathic doses: progress comes slowly, although we’re now moving towards a slightly faster dynamic. Returning to the issue of multilateralism: if we manage not only to preserve it, but also to expand it, especially with the leadership of developing countries, we can strengthen international cooperation even in the absence of the United States in the negotiations. It’s worth noting that, despite the absence of the federal government, many U.S. states remain active on the climate agenda and will be at COP30. We hope that state governments will contribute to global climate action and that this will help to balance the scales. Even the U.S. federal government may come under pressure, as there’s a risk of losing international competitiveness. We’ve seen this before – such as when the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. These sometimes impulsive attitudes result in major lost opportunities, especially in the current context, where globalization is facing its own challenges. But I don’t believe that the absence of the United States alone threatens the multilateral process. The greater risk would be if this caused a domino effect in other countries. For me, the success of COP30 will be precisely to avoid this effect and, more than that, to strengthen multilateralism with new leadership, especially from developing countries. I’m confident, for example, that China will continue to play a leading role. Although it’s currently the largest global emitter, the country is investing heavily in the transition and is emerging as a leader in renewable sources, such as solar, and in electric mobility. They have a cautious approach: they prefer to announce modest but achievable goals rather than promise too much and not deliver. Cultures are diverse, and that needs to be respected.

Agência FAPESP – You highlighted climate inequality between countries. But there are also internal inequalities within countries themselves. How can these different realities and conflicts be reconciled in this multilateral context?
Krug – In the COP negotiations, it’s observed that the most vulnerable continue to be the most affected – but that often remains only in discourse. In the Nationally Determined Contributions, countries express both their ambitions and the barriers they face in implementing them. These barriers aren’t unique to developing countries. Even developed countries face internal pressures to maintain their dependence on fossil fuels, due to the strength of certain industrial sectors. But for developing countries, the obstacles go beyond financing: they also involve technical capacity building and technology transfer – areas where we still have a long way to go. Perhaps we’ll see more concrete progress in bilateral agreements and in the Action Agenda, which is less dependent on broad consensus and more focused on partnerships between actors in a spirit of collaboration. In these agreements, those who join already arrive with a willingness to contribute, to cooperate, to act. That’s why I see the 30 actions to be discussed at this COP as promising. These initiatives are still broad, but they’re in line with the Global Stocktake. This type of action is crucial to promoting social and human development, especially recognizing the enormous regional inequalities within countries such as Brazil. It isn’t just a matter of decreeing zero illegal deforestation, as Brazil has committed to doing. This requires rebuilding public policies, addressing diverse interests, and remembering that there are 26 million people living in the Amazon, many of whom depend on the forest for their survival. The alternative must come from regional knowledge, from science done there, which understands the cultural, social, and environmental specificities of the region. Fortunately, we’ve seen the strengthening of a diverse Brazilian science, with brilliant scientists spread throughout the country – many of them already participating in the IPCC and other international bodies. Today, we have a growing and qualified female presence, which is also a step forward. This isn’t merely a symbolic issue: men and women think differently, have different backgrounds, and this diversity of perspectives enriches the debate and strengthens solutions.

Agência FAPESP – What are the responsibilities of the COP30 Scientific Council, which you lead, and how will FAPESP participate in the conference?
Krug – Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, designated president of COP30, and executive secretary Ana Toni have a very clear vision of the importance of science in the climate process. Both are extremely well prepared, with technical expertise, and are accessible and constructive, qualities that lead me to believe that the outcomes of COP30 will be very positive. They understand that science, technology, innovation, and financing are fundamental pillars for addressing the climate crisis. For this reason, three ad hoc councils have been created: one focused on climate science, another on technology and innovation, and a third focused on financing. The objective of the Scientific Council is to provide technical and analytical support during the conference – both in official negotiations and in the Climate Action Agenda. This council, although small, is composed of renowned scientists from both Brazil and abroad. Because it’s ad hoc, it can bring in new expertise as needed in order to respond quickly to demands that arise during the event. We’ve already begun working on some priority issues identified by Ambassador André and Ana Toni, such as the challenge of keeping global warming within the 1.5 °C limit – a point that will require technical depth and projections based on the best available scientific evidence. At the same time, I’m helping to coordinate FAPESP’s participation in COP30, at the invitation of President Marco Antonio Zago. This is a significant responsibility, considering the Foundation’s strategic role in scientific research on climate change. FAPESP has a climate change program, which supports robust research on climate risks, mitigation, and adaptation – topics that gain relevance with each COP cycle. It also has initiatives in energy transition and bioeconomy, among other related areas. In conversations with program coordinators and advisors at FAPESP, we reached a consensus that participation in COP shouldn’t be limited to the presentation of scientific results. The idea is to build a dynamic space for dialogue, with panels that integrate science, the private sector, civil society, and local communities. We want to show that science can be a bridge between knowledge and action, and that FAPESP’s programs are open to incorporating new elements and perspectives brought by other sectors. It’s this articulation that we intend to take to Belém.