Should We Still Care About COP?

This year’s Conference of the Parties (COP) highlighted just how difficult it has become to reach a global consensus on how to tackle climate change. With the US, Indian, and Chinese Presidents deciding it was not even an issue worth showing up for, urgency was certainly not the only thing lacking in Belém this year. Trade took centre stage, overshadowing other pressing climate decisions, and ambitions to phase out fossil fuels were blocked by countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia. But can we find a way to remain optimistic about the limited progress made at COP30?

The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) became a central point of contention. The programme is set to become fully operational this January, after a two-year pilot stage. This involved implementing a levy on non-EU imported goods based on their emissions intensity, using pricing from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to establish a baseline, with the aim of addressing carbon leakage and levelling the playing field for domestic products that had already paid carbon taxes. The EU claims that these measures could help ensure that decarbonisation becomes a higher priority for companies seeking to make their products more competitive.

This move is controversial, with opponents viewing the taxes as unilateral trade measures which will erode the competitiveness of products from emerging economies. This could dampen development, without which crucial transitions to greener economies and technologies are not possible. Significant resources will also be required to measure the data needed to set tariffs. Claims of green protectionism, the use of protectionist trade measures under the guise of addressing environmental concerns, also undermine the viability of such solutions. Border carbon adjustment (BCA) policies can damage bilateral trade relations and be self-defeating, as they risk destabilising global supply chains. The careful balance between economic development and emission mitigation required for success will be difficult to strike.

But the EU is not alone in their approach – the US has explored multiple BCA policies, for example, reintroducing the Foreign Pollution Fee Act in April 2025 which imposes ad valorem taxes on carbon-intensive goods. The UK’s own CBAM is set to be implemented in January 2027, and Canada has been looking into bilateral solutions with the US, as well as potential BCAs. Brazil, Japan, and South Korea are also considering expanding or developing their own ETS. With increasing implementation, these measures could encourage global standardisation of carbon policy – as more countries use them, a multilateral approach to carbon pricing becomes more attractive. When several countries adopt the same mechanism, costs are significantly reduced, and international trade is simplified.

The meeting highlighted a lack of faith in the pledges made by developing countries. COP26 saw a commitment to double adaptation finance for low-income countries, which has reneged upon. Hence, propositions such as the Mutirão decision, which calls for triple adaptation finance by 2035, lack credibility. Several financial commitments were made: Europe pledged 5 billion USD to protect the Congo Basin rainforest, and countries also recommitted to their goal of 1.3 trillion USD of support from both public and private sectors for the next ten years. Without the US, however, many developing countries questioned the reliability of these commitments.

The absence of the US overshadowed negotiations. Just a week before the conference, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the Associated Press that COP30 is ‘essentially a hoax’, and Donald Trump’s ongoing denial about the ‘con job’ that is climate change is already curbing global progress, with Europe left isolated and unable to create momentum. Other countries, however, made the most of Trump’s truancy – the Russians and Saudis endeavoured to block any language suggesting their actions had been inadequate, and China and India advocated increased trade fairness and flexibility (no doubt a hint at the EU’s CBAM). In the wake of more extreme politics, in which climate action has become divisive rather than unifying, it will be important to keep this dialogue, even if difficult, open to foster the international partnerships necessary for progress.

The need for international cooperation and a more streamlined negotiation process was also evident this year. Brazil launched the Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade (IFCCT), which aims to provide a space for interdisciplinary, solution-oriented dialogue grounded in expert advice. Operating independently from the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and by making all proceedings ‘non-binding, non-negotiated and non-attributable’, this initiative claims it will transform our current fragmented approach to sustainable development and make a real impact. Key parts of this involve avoiding unilateral trade measures and exploring the link between trade and energy transitions. But the age-old questionof whether leaders will be able to practise what they preach remains.  

The intersection of climate change and international trade has proved itself to be of utmost importance this year. This will involve rethinking the global industrial pact and blueprint on climate diplomacy. Multilateralism and economic diversification, as well as real determination from world leaders, will be necessary to establish climate-resilient economies and ensure inclusive economic growth. Maintaining unity in a fragmented geopolitical environment will be difficult, but trade must not become a battleground, and we mustinstead resolve to use it to its full potential – as a catalyst to building climate-resilient, sustainable economies.  

There was a shift in the status quo this year. Trade took centre stage, leaving some negotiators to question whether the COP system remains fit for purpose. Lengthy negotiation processes and complex voting rules have stalled progress, but we have seen just how important it is for all world leaders to show up and thus must preserve these platforms as places to forge important international partnerships. It will be through meetings like this that further polarisation will be avoided and the world can hold itself accountable together.  

‍