Re: COP30, climate multilateralism didn't fail completely, which was possible. Some movement adaptation $. I have some hope for the coalition of the willing exercises the COP Pres promised of FFs and deforestation.But NDCs barely moved the needle. Backtracking on even mentioning fossil fuels.

Australia’s support was biggest surprise in that regard. Incoming COP chair of negotiations so maybe that was a factor. Fwiw I do think other producers have levers — eg wrt new licenses and infrastructure, subsidy reform, SOEs. But maybe you meant others’ leverage over them?

Art with an unmistakeable message outside the conference venue yesterday.

After Presidency affirmed Saudi Arabia's understanding that the process going forward will not revisit decisions already made (presumably ensuring not a backdoor to a roadmap for fossil fuel transition), the President's proposal was approved through the "wonderful noise of Amazonian rain."

Defending the Presidency: India, Nigeria, Tanzania and Russia, which angrily declared other countries were behaving like children. This provoked strong responses from Argentina and Panama, which argued that "children are visionary" and we should all behave more like children to protect our future.

After negotiations during break, President's response that decisions were gavelled and are final. But he expressed sincere regret that he was not made aware of objections. Commits that will refer it to subsidiary bodies to advance in Bonn. Then some fireworks!

In raising its objection Colombia argued forcefully that there can be no mitigation without transition away from fossil fuels (true!), and that failure to address fossil fuels in the Mitigation Work Program is "a form of climate denialism." Clearly not OK with parallel process promised by Presidency

I truly welcome insight from those with greater knowledge of UNFCCC procedures.

Now several countries saying these are not just concerns but objections, i.e., didn't support the decision. Issues wrt adaptation indicators, failure to include FF transition. In response the President has suspended the plenary, pending consultations with the parties. What is status of decisions??

30 yrs > UNFCCC, 10 yrs > Paris, it seems from just-released cover text (not yet adopted) that it's still not possible to say the words "fossil fuels," the primary source of global warming, in this consensus-based multilateral process. No fossil fuel transition roadmap.
unfccc.int/sites/defaul...

They are both hugely disappointing outcomes. The question still on my mind is whether they can agree to something better.

I never hear anyone saying that, certainly not at COP. Rather, the expectation is that transition will be gradual, not overnight, and that even at net zero there would still be some fossil fuel production/consumption, but much less and for specific uses.

Here is the text of the Belém Declaration.

There are lots of overlapping things going on!
- 80-some countries calling for inclusion of FF roadmap in COP30 cover text
- now (with France) a subset of 30 of those saying they won't sign without that text
- Belém Declaration signatories (also) pursuing a parallel coalition of the willing process.

Noteworthy that there are some fossil fuel producers in there: Australia (coal, LNG), Colombia (oil), Mexico (oil, gas).

@carbonbrief.org reporting members of the "coalition of the willing."
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, Netherlands, Panama, Spain, Slovenia, Vanuatu, Tuvalu.

I assume there's IR literature (not my area) on why countries sign on to treaties that don't seem to be in their interests. Welcome any/all insights! Maybe to stay in the room to have opportunity to slow things down? Read this week (haven't confirmed) that SA was behind UNFCC's full consensus rule.

I think they tend to disagree on procedural grounds. e.g., FF roadmap would violate differentiated responsibility principle. Or we need to focus on "emissions" rather than "fossil fuels." It is intriguing why some countries signed on the PA in first place - maybe to ensure in the room to influence?