If we seem obsessed with COPs generally and COP30 in particular, we are. But only because of our CDO (OCD but with the letters in alphabetical order as they should be). It’s because the climate zealots are obsessed with them, making alarmist commentary on those conferences a bellwether for whether they’re smartening up about the weather. So please bear with us as the hilarity keeps us transfixed. Heatmap tries to celebrate that: “For the second year in a row, the United Nations climate conference ended without a consensus declaration that tackling global warming requires transitioning away from fossil fuels. The final agreement at COP30 did, however, touch on another uncomfortable subject: Countries resolved to limit ‘the magnitude and duration of any temperature overshoot.’” Resolved being a word here meaning they have admitted they can’t do what they used to claim was easy and profitable so they’ll instead commit to doing something even harder, but not yet. We lack the resolve to prevent this calamity so we’ll let it happen then find the resolve to undo it, as if an ounce of cure were worth a pound of prevention. Or they were so attached to the symbol of their futility that they just can’t come to grips with the substance of it.

For instance try to get pumped up by this start to a New York Times “Climate Forward” column by Claire Brown just before COP30 started:

“World leaders have gathered in Brazil for COP30, this year’s global climate summit. Basically, it’s the World Cup of negotiations over global warming. The venue is still under construction, with exposed plywood and plastic-wrapped exhibits around the site, David Gelles reported from Belém, the city on the edge of the Amazon where the talks will unfold over the next two weeks.”

Shades of Jordan Peterson’s teenagers who want to clean up the planet and can’t clean up their rooms. And if you thought the half-finished and as it turned out badly fire-proofed site was bad, you should have seen the conference. Because a supposedly positive sign from early on was “Agenda fight avoided”. Not because they agreed on the agenda but because:

“The Brazilian presidency managed to sidestep a looming fight over a clutch of new agenda items put forward by countries in the run-up to the conference. Most of the controversial issues have been pushed to consultations, with an update scheduled for Wednesday.”

Oh come off it. They’d seen the conference coming for a year, they’d seen previous ones founder embarrassingly on interminable battles over the agenda, and their solution was to delay the battle over the agenda until part-way through the meeting it was meant to structure? No book of management theory advocates anything remotely comparable.

Then there was Reuters “Sustainable Switch” saying don’t fret that the talks are going nowhere because “Usually, these negotiations tend to carry on for a few hours or days after the official end of the summit. Last year’s COP29 deal was clinched a day after the summit ended.” Yeah? And what did it say and what happened? Can’t even remember, can you? And what sort of process, after 30 years, still can’t end on time? We’ll tell you: one where the participants can’t agree and can’t face their inability to agree.

The New York Times “Climate Forward” snarled:

“Oil Producers, but Maybe Not the Planet, Get a Win as Climate Talks End/ The final agreement, with no direct mention of the fossil fuels dangerously heating Earth, was a victory for countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia, diplomats said.”

So they want to do it all again. And again. And again. As The Atlantic “Weekly Planet” put it, and there was no way to try to make it sound positive:

“In its 30 years, COP has frequently been a ritual in frustration and futility, ending with a set of pledges and promises that have rarely gone as far as scientists say they need to, followed by weeks of postmortem finger-pointing and self-flagellation. And yesterday, once again delegates landed on a heavily compromised text that does little to materially steer the planet off fossil fuels.”

It then heckled the United States for not joining in the futility. But why should they want to when:

“Every year, environmental NGOs, climate scientists, concerned citizens, and government ministers alike register confusion and despair over the fact that after so many cycles of these meetings, industrial civilization erupts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ever before.”

The Economist spat out:

“‘This process is a nightmare. But it’s the best process we’ve got.’ That is what Ed Miliband, Britain’s energy secretary, told reporters late on Friday evening, as negotiations in Belém, Brazil, for the UN’s annual climate summit stretched well past their deadline. By the time a deal was finally gavelled through the next afternoon, it was difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing with the first half of Mr Miliband’s comment.”

Not that there weren’t attempts, like this straw to clutch at from Bloomberg Green on Nov. 19:

“Talks are entering crunch time at COP30 with only three more days of negotiations left and delegates are expecting an unusual visitor today: Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. It’s rare for the host country’s leader to get involved in negotiations, but his presence might tip the scales on a number of issues, including a road map to leave fossil fuels behind supported by 80 nations.”

Or not. Because not one of those nations plans to leave fossil fuels behind. But every one of them plans to meet next year to create high expectations that they’re about to do so, only to become enmeshed in agenda fights, put out organizational if not actual fires, go into overtime and, bleary and bitter, fake agreement on lack of substance.

This really is a movement in deep trouble.