A sudden shift in climate diplomacy
At this year’s COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil, negotiators released a draft outcome text that omits any mention of fossil fuels or a roadmap for their phase-out — a sharp reversal from prior drafts and a clear pivot away from the explicit fossil-fuel language agreed at COP28. Earlier versions of the draft had included options for a transition away from oil, gas and coal, but under pressure from oil-producing states such as Saudi Arabia and major fossil-fuel consumers like China and India, the language was removed altogether. The omission has stunned many delegates, especially smaller island states and developing countries, who say the silence on fossil fuels undermines global climate goals and threatens the legitimacy of COP30’s final agreement.
What the draft does and doesn’t include
The new text still calls for tripling climate-adaptation finance by 2030 and launches a multi-year dialogue on climate, trade and finance. However, the glaring absence of language on fossil fuels means there is no commitment — even ambiguous — to accelerating the transition away from the major source of greenhouse-gas emissions. Analysts say this effectively leaves the fossil-fuel sector unchallenged within this deal.
Why this matters
Fossil fuels remain the lion’s share of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Without a clear commitment to reduce or phase out their use, climate experts warn that the world’s ability to meet the 1.5 °C target under the Paris Agreement is increasingly at risk. The fact that the draft now does not even mention the term “fossil fuels” indicates the level of resistance from fossil-fuel-dependent states, signalling a major setback in global climate diplomacy. For many vulnerable nations, the removal represents not just a lost opportunity but a potential breach of trust: they say commitments must be matched by action, and action must start with fossil fuels.
Reaction from key players
A letter signed by more than 30 countries — including Germany, France, Kenya, Colombia and the Marshall Islands — warned they “cannot support an outcome that does not include a roadmap for implementing a just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels”. Representatives of fossil-fuel-producing countries welcomed the removal of language as sensible, with one negotiator noting the elimination of “unrealistic obligations” for countries still reliant on fossil-fuel extraction. Environmental groups described the draft as “deeply disappointing” and “an abdication of ambitions”. Greenpeace issued a statement saying: “By omitting fossil fuels, this draft signals we are stepping backwards when we should be reckoning with the core cause of the climate crisis.”
What comes next — and the risks
Negotiations are still ongoing, and the draft text may yet be revised. The deal still requires consensus approval by all parties — and if agreement cannot be reached around fossil-fuel language, the summit risks becoming another low-ambition outcome.
If the final agreement passes without fossil-fuel commitments, experts say it could:
- Undermine trust in the COP process and slow momentum for global climate action.
- Weaken the ability of poorer nations to demand support from richer ones on just transition.
- Shift more of the burden to individual national policies, rather than coordinated international frameworks.
- Encourage fossil-fuel-dependent states to resist future transition language, knowing they can block consensus.
Final thought
The omission of fossil-fuel language from the COP30 draft is more than a negotiation nuance — it is a signal. It shows the widening fracture between ambitions of vulnerable countries and blocks of fossil-fuel–dependent states. As one climate delegate put it: “We expected bargaining over ambition; now we face bargaining over denial.” The coming hours in Belém will determine whether the world moves forward — or stagnates.
Europe-based journalist with 10 years of experience covering Australian politics, sport and breaking news.
