This year’s UN climate talks avoided fossil fuels, again | MIT Technology Review

You need to enable JavaScript to view this site.

Skip to ContentMIT Technology ReviewFeaturedTopicsNewslettersEventsAudioMIT Technology ReviewFeaturedTopicsNewslettersEventsAudioClimate change and energyThis year’s UN climate talks avoided fossil fuels, againWhy can’t world leaders acknowledge that fossil fuels are the leading contributor to climate change?
By Casey Crownhartarchive pageNovember 27, 2025Getty Images If we didn’t have pictures and videos, I almost wouldn’t believe the imagery that came out of this year’s UN climate talks. Over the past few weeks in Belem, Brazil, attendees dealt with oppressive heat and flooding, and at one point a literal fire broke out, delaying negotiations. The symbolism was almost too much to bear. While many, including the president of Brazil, framed this year’s conference as one of action, the talks ended with a watered-down agreement. The final draft doesn’t even include the phrase “fossil fuels.” As emissions and global temperatures reach record highs again this year, I’m left wondering: Why is it so hard to formally acknowledge what’s causing the problem?
This is the 30th time that leaders have gathered for the Conference of the Parties, or COP, an annual UN conference focused on climate change. COP30 also marks 10 years since the gathering that produced the Paris Agreement, in which world powers committed to limiting global warming to “well below” 2.0 °C above preindustrial levels, with a goal of staying below the 1.5 °C mark. (That’s 3.6 °F and 2.7 °F, respectively, for my fellow Americans.) Before the conference kicked off this year, host country Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, cast this as the “implementation COP” and called for negotiators to focus on action, and specifically to deliver a road map for a global transition away from fossil fuels.
The science is clear—burning fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases and drives climate change. Reports have shown that meeting the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C would require stopping new fossil-fuel exploration and development. The problem is, “fossil fuels” might as well be a curse word at global climate negotiations. Two years ago, fights over how to address fossil fuels brought talks at COP28 to a standstill. (It’s worth noting that the conference was hosted in Dubai in the UAE, and the leader was literally the head of the country’s national oil company.) The agreement in Dubai ended up including a line that called on countries to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems. It was short of what many advocates wanted, which was a more explicit call to phase out fossil fuels entirely. But it was still hailed as a win. As I wrote at the time: “The bar is truly on the floor.” Related StoryWho’s to blame for climate change? It’s surprisingly complicated.Read next And yet this year, it seems we’ve dug into the basement. At one point about 80 countries, a little under half of those present, demanded a concrete plan to move away from fossil fuels. But oil producers like Saudi Arabia were insistent that fossil fuels not be singled out. Other countries, including some in Africa and Asia, also made a very fair point: Western nations like the US have burned the most fossil fuels and benefited from it economically. This contingent maintains that legacy polluters have a unique responsibility to finance the transition for less wealthy and developing nations rather than simply barring them from taking the same development route.  The US, by the way, didn’t send a formal delegation to the talks, for the first time in 30 years. But the absence spoke volumes. In a statement to the New York Times that sidestepped the COP talks, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said that president Trump had “set a strong example for the rest of the world” by pursuing new fossil-fuel development. To sum up: Some countries are economically dependent on fossil fuels, some don’t want to stop depending on fossil fuels without incentives from other countries, and the current US administration would rather keep using fossil fuels than switch to other energy sources. 

All those factors combined help explain why, in its final form, COP30’s agreement doesn’t name fossil fuels at all. Instead, there’s a vague line that leaders should take into account the decisions made in Dubai, and an acknowledgement that the “global transition towards low greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible and the trend of the future.” Hopefully, that’s true. But it’s concerning that even on the world’s biggest stage, naming what we’re supposed to be transitioning away from and putting together any sort of plan to actually do it seems to be impossible. This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here. by Casey CrownhartShareShare story on linkedinShare story on facebookShare story on emailPopularWe’re learning more about what vitamin D does to our bodiesJessica HamzelouHow AGI became the most consequential conspiracy theory of our timeWill Douglas HeavenOpenAI’s new LLM exposes the secrets of how AI really worksWill Douglas HeavenMeet the man building a starter kit for civilizationTiffany NgDeep DiveClimate change and energyBill Gates: Our best weapon against climate change is ingenuityA measure I call the Green Premium reveals where we can invest in climate progress for maximum impact.
By Bill Gatesarchive page2025 Climate Tech Companies to WatchBy Amy Nordrumarchive pageThis company is planning a lithium empire from the shores of the Great Salt LakeLilac Solutions is pioneering a new type of lithium extraction that could double US production in two years and shake up the industry.
By Alexander C. Kaufmanarchive pageBig Tech’s big bet on a controversial carbon removal tacticBioenergy with carbon capture and storage can scale faster than other approaches. But some experts are dubious about the climate benefits.
By James Templearchive pageStay connectedIllustration by Rose WongGet the latest updates fromMIT Technology ReviewDiscover special offers, top stories,
upcoming events, and more.Enter your emailPrivacy PolicyThank you for submitting your email!Explore more newslettersIt looks like something went wrong.
We’re having trouble saving your preferences.
Try refreshing this page and updating them one
more time. If you continue to get this message,
reach out to us at
customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.The latest iteration of a legacyFounded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899, MIT Technology Review is a world-renowned, independent media company whose insight, analysis, reviews, interviews and live events explain the newest technologies and their commercial, social and political impact.READ ABOUT OUR HISTORYAdvertise with MIT Technology ReviewElevate your brand to the forefront of conversation around emerging technologies that are radically transforming business. From event sponsorships to custom content to visually arresting video storytelling, advertising with MIT Technology Review creates opportunities for your brand to resonate with an unmatched audience of technology and business elite.ADVERTISE WITH US© 2025 MIT Technology ReviewAboutAbout usCareersCustom contentAdvertise with usInternational EditionsRepublishingMIT Alumni NewsHelpHelp & FAQMy subscriptionEditorial guidelinesPrivacy policyTerms of ServiceWrite for usContact uslinkedin opens in a new windowinstagram opens in a new windowreddit opens in a new windowfacebook opens in a new windowrss opens in a new window

This year’s Conference of the Parties (COP30) negotiations, held in Belem, Brazil, underscored a persistent obstacle in global climate action: the reluctance to explicitly address fossil fuels. Despite a backdrop of escalating climate impacts – including oppressive heat, flooding, and a fire – the final agreement conspicuously omitted any reference to “fossil fuels.” This reflects a complex interplay of economic interests, historical responsibility, and political maneuvering. Approximately 80 countries, roughly half of those present, demanded a concrete plan to move away from fossil fuels, highlighting a growing urgency for decisive action. However, nations like Saudi Arabia, heavily reliant on oil revenues, resisted calls to specifically target fossil fuels, arguing that historical polluters, particularly Western nations, bear a greater responsibility to assist developing countries in transitioning to alternative energy sources. The United States’ absence of a formal delegation—a first in 30 years—further emphasized this divide. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers’ statement, echoing President Trump’s push for increased fossil fuel development, crystallized this stance. The final agreement settled on a vague acknowledgement of the “global transition towards low greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-resilient development,” a statement that, while perhaps intended to signal progress, ultimately avoided the critical step of naming and confronting the primary driver of the climate crisis. This situation is primarily driven by economic dependencies within certain nations, the desire to avoid abrupt changes in global energy markets, and differing perceptions of historical responsibility for climate change. The reluctance to directly address “fossil fuels” highlights the significant barriers to effective climate diplomacy, demonstrating the need for broader cooperation and a more equitable approach to addressing the world’s most pressing environmental challenge.