It was strange, even sad, to watch the remaining zealots gathered at COP30 try to convince themselves, and the world, that it was an exciting and productive event. The Financial Times ran an inexplicable headline “Global climate agreement sealed at COP30 despite deep divisions”. The reason it’s inexplicable is that nothing of the sort happened, the subhed immediately following admitting: “Push for ‘road map’ on how economies can wean off coal, oil and gas fails but Brazilian presidency promises to follow up”. For the sake of the rainforest we hope they don’t. In its glum coverage of COP30 Heatmap managed not to mention the way the Brazilian government hacked a highway through a protected rainforest to get people to Belém, instead only alluding gingerly to its “desperately inadequate infrastructure”. And not alluding to the big diesel-powered cruise ships accommodating the delegates and celebrities who flew in, including by private carbon-spewing jet, lest it cause talk. Which it did anyway, at least in Western Standard, which writes “If climate change is as urgent as we are told, why is the global climate bureaucracy still organizing enormous in-person gatherings that produce more emissions than some small towns?” We also ask why especially if the results are so depressing. As Heatmap AM emailed on Nov. 24, “COP30 ends with a fossil fuel victory”. Oh darn.

To quote, perhaps surprisingly, from Saul Alinsky’s infamous Rules for Radicals:

“Organizations need action as an individual needs oxygen. The cessation of action brings death to the organization through factionalism and inaction, through dialogues and conferences that are actually a form of rigor mortis rather than life.”

And what else have COPs been doing for at least the last decade than “following up” on deals that committed nobody to anything with more dialogues and conferences marked by factionalism that were actually a form of rigor mortis, and none more than this one?

There’s just no hiding it. Bloomberg Green got it revealingly wrong in summing it up as:

“After two weeks of flood, fire, protests and coffee-fueled late-night negotiations, COP30 has reached a close. The deal left many nations frustrated with its lack of ambition.”

The problem wasn’t lack of ambition. These conferences have been overfull of the stuff, and overly self-congratulatory, from the word “Go.” The problem, as always, was lack of action. The word “Stop”.

When Climate Home News emailed on the nominal last day that “Hopes fade for ambitious COP30 deal” the only consoling thought we could come up with was “They didn’t fade, there never really were any hopes”. Including for finishing on time; as the related story started:

“As talks dragged into overtime on Friday, frustration mounted in the main COP30 hall (a vast grey wind tunnel) with the way the negotiations have been handled by the Brazilian presidency.”

Right. Cue the infighting. But what exactly was the problem? Well see um uh:

“A weaker draft of the main ‘Global Mutirão’ decision released at 3am on Friday, stoked anger among European, Latin American and small island states as it omitted references to a roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels.”

But major countries weren’t ever going to agree to such a thing, and if they did pretend to they certainly weren’t going to try to do it, never mind succeed if they tried.

Thus:

“The EU’s climate chief Wopke Hoekstra said ‘under no circumstances’ would the EU accept anything that is ‘remotely close – and I say it with pain in my heart – to what is now on the table’.”

Why with pain in his heart? Because he thought it could be done and they just weren’t? Because he knew it was absurd and wished he and his ilk had not deliberately created precisely the opposite impression for decades including until the middle of last week?

So we say with pain in our necks: How is that problem the fault of the Brazilian presidency? And indeed Inside Climate News’s verdict right after it ground to a dismal halt was:

“COP30 has wound down in Belém, Brazil – the U.N. climate change conference marked this year by Indigenous rights demonstrations, an actual fire, and not a lot of movement on global climate action.”

Meanwhile those Climate Home News high hopes had turned to these ashes: “Bad-tempered close adopts limited steps on emission-cutting and finance”. And there’s just no way to make it sound like an achievement:

“Journalists had been waiting for two weeks for some real drama at COP30 – but in the spirit of putting on a united front, the Brazilian presidency made sure most of the fireworks happened behind closed doors away from the glare of the cameras. Until the closing session on Saturday. As COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago rattled through the adoption of the decisions in the key Belém political package, Latin American nations, Sierra Leone and a handful of rich countries raised objections about the brand-new metrics for adaptation, which had been shortened and rewritten at the last minute. Rather oddly, countries including the EU were silent about the lack of a fossil fuel transition roadmap around 80 of them had pushed for in the main ‘Global Mutirão’ decision. What they got instead were two new initiatives to drive ambition and implementation of national climate plans – and a promise from Corrêa do Lago that he will create a roadmap, alongside another to end deforestation.”

That’s it? Thirty years of conferences, preparatory conferences, follow-up conferences, vice-conferences and a microwave fire, and all you have is a promise to create a roadmap? Pfui. No wonder they “were silent” about how this big thing of ending fossil fuels someday somehow got dropped because nobody knows how to do it and disaster would ensue if they did. It’s over. Stick a fork in it.

As Bjorn Lomborg put it:

“The end of this climate summit is entirely familiar. Yet again, the global climate negotiation process is failing to deliver anything except lofty rhetoric and pledges that won’t be fulfilled. We need a course correction to halt the cycle of empty promises and focus on solutions that will actually deliver for people and the planet.”

Instead we get the Canadian government trying to chirp, or drone on inspirationally, that:

“Strengthening global cooperation means ensuring climate action is fair, inclusive, and responsive to those most affected. Canada endorsed the Global Statement on Gender Equality and Climate Action, underscoring its commitment to empowering women and girls as leaders and partners in climate solutions. This endorsement reinforces Canada’s advocacy for gender-responsive climate finance, inclusive decision-making, and the adoption of an ambitious new Gender Action Plan at COP30. Discussions also highlighted the importance of working with Indigenous partners and rights-holders to ensure climate and environmental measures reflect their perspectives, knowledge, and leadership. Efforts to combat climate change need to support real-world inclusive solutions and protect vulnerable populations for a sustainable future. Concrete outcomes from the past week reaffirmed the global commitment to climate action and multilateralism.”

But wasn’t COP30 where action was actually meant to happen? Instead they reaffirmed the global commitment to multilateralism. The commitment. Like:

“Canada announced new endorsements of the Kananaskis Wildfire Charter by Andorra, Chile, Costa Rica, Norway, Peru, Türkiye, and Spain, further strengthening global commitment to preventing, responding to, and recovering from wildfires.”

The commitment. Then the campaign speech:

“Canada leaves Belém with renewed determination to take meaningful action on climate change. As the world transitions to clean energy and low-carbon industries, we will continue to work closely with international partners while ensuring the country remains competitive. Climate action and economic growth must go hand in hand, and the progress achieved at COP30 will support a stronger, more sustainable, and more competitive Canada for decades to come.”

No. Because there wasn’t any. Just renewed determination to do some unspecified thing in some unspecified way later.

Then there’s this weird low five from Reuters “Sustainable Switch” on what was slated to be the final day:

“Hello! It’s here – the last day of the annual United Nations climate summit, COP30, in Belem, Brazil. In the words of one of my favorite actors, Richard E. Grant, in an Instagram video describing his feelings after watching Star Wars: The rise of Sky Walker: ‘I cheered, I shouted, I fist pumped the air, I cried’.”

Um whoop de doo. But why? Well, see:

“We made it to the end of COP30. But, for environmentalists, the COP30 deal does not match Grant’s verdict on Star Wars that it was “absolutely everything I hoped it would be.” Instead, a draft text for a proposed deal for this year’s climate summit dropped a proposal to develop a global plan to shift away from fossil fuels that had been included in an earlier version…. In the text released before dawn on Friday, all mentions of fossil fuels had been dropped. The text, which is still subject to further negotiation, would need approval by consensus in order to be adopted.”

Good feeling’s gone, huh? Oh yeah. And then some:

“In another blow for activists and low-income nations, the draft also called for global efforts to triple the financing available to help nations adapt to climate change by 2030, from 2025 levels, but it did not specify whether this money would be provided directly by wealthy governments, or other sources including development banks or the private sector. Those were not the only eventful parts about COP30. Talks at the summit were disrupted on Thursday after a fire broke out in the venue, triggering an evacuation just as negotiators were hunkering down to try to land a deal to strengthen international climate efforts.”

At least it was quite a fire due in part to facilities as shoddily constructed as the communiques. But hardly worth going, was it, when the big news, spun as some sort of unifying moment for humanity, was an exploding microwave oven.

Mind you it wasn’t just the end of fossil fuels that proved controversial, talks also blew up over the question of whether women have penises :

“A row over the definition of the term “gender” threatens to bog down pivotal talks at the Cop30 climate summit. Before the UN talks in Brazil, hardline conservative states have pushed to define gender as ‘biological sex’ over their concerns trans and non-binary people could be included in a major plan to ensure climate action addresses gender inequality and empowers women.”

Hardline no less. But if you have the time and can afford the luxury of debating gender ideology, maybe you don’t think the planet’s really on fire?

Very slightly earlier and a lot less cosmically, Bloomberg Green had grumped that:

“The meeting is off to a rough start, with negotiators working until late last night in a so far failed attempt to agree on what should be in the agenda. It’s a technical but important step – only what makes it in can be tackled within the process.”

It seems to happen every year, indicating that they don’t learn even procedurally especially as this meeting is preceded by a bunch of meetings to meet on meetings about the meeting and they can’t even finish the agenda fight. Shoving off the matter of what to discuss until half-way through the discussions because you can’t even fake agreement, let alone reach it, on matters this petty when you claim the Earth is on fire and only you can put it out, simply cannot be made to look like an achievement.

What passed for signs of hope were delusions about China:

“Under Trump, the U.S. is alone in its climate denial/ At this year’s United Nations climate conference, China is expected to set a ‘very ambitious’ goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.”

Or this dreck from The Economist:

“China’s lead in global manufacturing is bigger than ever. And part of that success has been the astonishing growth of China’s renewable-energy industries, bolstered by new applications for electricity such as mass-market electric vehicles.”

Not to mention this fandom from Bloomberg Green at COP30:

“California Governor Gavin Newsom swept into the COP30 climate summit in Brazil yesterday with all the fanfare of a head of state. He met with foreign ministers, huddled with the governor of the state of Pará, Brazil, and signed a declaration for deepened collaboration with Germany’s Baden-Württemberg. And everywhere Newsom went inside the packed conference venue near the mouth of the Amazon River, he was mobbed by delegates and activists eager for a glimpse of the Democratic governor who’s effectively become the highest-ranking US emissary at the international climate talks.”

Translated into real-world English, the United States did not even send a delegation. And the governor of a state in deep trouble over its own alternative energy zealotry, despite its massive economy, is deepening collaboration with Baden-Wurttemberg? Start the presses.