By Dr. Manish Kumar Shrivastava
As COP30 in Belém enters its final hours, the heat in the Amazonian city rises with anxiety, frustration, and hardening positions of the Parties on different agenda items of climate negotiations. The 30th edition of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention was billed as the “COP of implementation,” which would go beyond targets and put the world on a robust road for mitigation, adaptation, and finance. However, negotiators from nearly 200 countries, whose job is to arrive at an agreement on how to translate the Paris Agreement’s promises into real-world action, are locked in a debate over ambition. Each group of countries is blaming the others for blocking the progress.
This loss of track of purpose is worrisome, as much is at stake: global emissions are at record levels, climate disasters are intensifying, and the window to keep warming below 1.5°C is closing fast. The carbon budget to stay within the Paris targets is likely to be consumed within the next five years at the current rate of global annual emissions.
The two issues dominating and dividing the negotiation rooms are: a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels and ambition on climate finance under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. It is an irrational division as these are not separate debates; they are inseparable twins. Without finance, fossil fuel phase-out is a hollow promise. Without a clear energy transition, finance lacks purpose.
Is a Phase-Out Roadmap necessary as a COP outcome?
Over 80 countries, led by the EU, small island states, and climate-vulnerable nations, demand a formal roadmap to phase out coal, oil, and gas. A “transition away from fossil fuels” was agreed upon at COP28, two years ago. The group of like-minded countries, particularly the oil-producing countries, insist on “national circumstances” and reject any language on phase-out, fearing economic disruption. As host, Brazil supports a roadmap for a “just, orderly, and equitable transition,” an issue that India had insisted on including in the Paris Agreement.
Currently, as part of the Paris implementation cycle, countries submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) every 5 years, with progressively increasing ambition in mitigation and adaptation. These are practically part of the long-term pledges on Net-Zero emissions around the middle of the century. The various progress reports, particularly the Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs), submitted to the UNFCCC under the Paris Enhanced Transparency Framework, are a robust accounting mechanism with defined timelines. Arguably, a comprehensive ecosystem already exists that meets the requirements of a roadmap for transition away from fossil fuels. Why do countries, particularly developed countries, demand a roadmap then?
Why is ambition on climate finance important?
Developing countries, including India, China, and the G77, demand the full implementation of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which obligates industrialised countries to transfer public finance to developing countries. On the eve of COP30, the COP29 and COP30 Presidencies jointly released the Baku to Belem Roadmap to mobilise climate finance, as agreed at COP20 in Baku. The Baku COP committed developed countries to a new target of $300 billion per year by 2035, up from the $100 billion target annually by 2020 agreed at the Copenhagen and Cancun COPs in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
The developed countries oppose any discussion on the ambition of climate finance commitment beyond the Baku agreement. The assessment of submitted BTRs shows that only $60 billion was transferred to developing countries in 2022, indicating that developed countries failed to meet their obligations. To put these numbers in context, developing countries need $2.4 trillion per year by 2030 for clean energy, adaptation, and resilience. Developing countries justifiably argue that the Baku commitment on finance is too little, too late.
Ambition on Finance and Decarbonization Are Twins
Transitioning away from coal, oil, and gas requires trillions of dollars in investment in renewables, grids, storage, and social safety nets. It needs to be primarily facilitated by developed countries. Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement unequivocally states that developed countries “shall provide” financial resources to developing countries. This is a legal obligation, not charity. Yet, at COP30, some wealthy nations seek to dilute this commitment, hiding behind vague notions of “finance alignment” under Article 2.1(c) and insisting on private finance mobilisation.
Without ambitious finance, any roadmap for fossil fuel phase-out would be irrational. A pipe dream that would collapse under the complexity of economic survival and social well-being. To expect countries like India or Kenya to shut down coal plants without providing funds for renewable alternatives, grid upgrades, and worker retraining is economic sabotage.
India: Overambition and Early Achievement
India’s targets on climate action are ambitious beyond its means. They seem unrealistic given the two goals: becoming a developed country by 2047 and achieving a net-zero emissions economy by 2070. Contrast this with the EU, an expanded region for more than 4 decades. The EU’s target to become a net-zero-emissions region by 2050 gives it 25 years. India would have only 23 years left after achieving developed-country status.
On short-term targets, India pledged a 20-25% reduction in emissions intensity of GDP by 2020 under the Cancun decision in 2010, and then a 33-35% reduction by 2030 under the Paris Agreement on NDCs in 2015. This NDC was updated in 2022 to a 45% reduction by 2030. India is well on track to achieve this target, according to the latest assessment by the Climate Action Tracker. The additional NDC commitment included 50% of installed power generation capacity from non-fossil fuel sources, a target already achieved in 2025. India is also likely to surpass another NDC commitment of cumulative sequestration of 2.5-3 billion tons of CO2 through forestry and related activities.
India’s achievements on NDCs are predominantly financed domestically. More than 80% of India's annual climate finance flows come from domestic sources. Without a substantial increase in access to international low-cost finance, it would be highly challenging for India to scale up the already ambitious NDCs further. Increasing the size of the economy and the availability of domestic finance, hence, is an instrumental priority for India, which will be at cross-purposes with any immediate phase-out of fossil fuels.
The Real Enemy of Progress
Let us be blunt: those who resist ambition on finance are the real enemies of progress at COP30. They are not just delaying negotiations; they are endangering lives and livelihoods across the Global South. Clearly, their insistence on a fossil fuel phase-out roadmap, where none is needed, is a façade to divert attention from their failure to deliver on means of implementation. Brazil’s presidency has urged negotiators to embrace mutirão—collective action. That spirit must now translate into a deal that is bold, fair, and funded. Ultimately, a COP of implementation must deliver on the means of implementation.
Manish Kumar Shrivastava is an Associate Director, Earth Science and Climate Change Division at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi
(Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs, and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and views of ABP Network Pvt. Ltd.)