The U.N. Has Now Held 30 Climate Change Conferences That Have Accomplished Almost Nothing
COP30 in Brazil just ended and was more of the same.
The United Nations' 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stuttered to its end in Belem, Brazil, over the weekend. From the point of view of climate activists and poor countries demanding that rich countries supply them with hundreds of billions of dollars in climate change handouts, COP30 was largely a bust. In addition, the chief activist goal for a commitment to a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels by a date certain was nowhere to be seen in the conference's final Global Mutirão decision.
COP30 convened 10 years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, in which signatory countries committed to "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." In pursuit of that goal, signatories were supposed to increase their commitments in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil, and natural gas, which are contributing to the rise in global average temperatures.
The Global Mutirão notes that achieving the Paris Agreement's limit of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels requires deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of 43 percent by 2030 and 60 percent by 2035 relative to the 2019 level and reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. That's not going to happen.
The U.N. Environment Programme calculates that if countries actually kept their NDC promises, global emissions would only fall by between 12 and 15 percent by 2035 relative to their 2019 levels, and that those reductions would shrink further to between 9 and 11 percent if the U.S.'s NDC is not counted. And it shouldn't be counted since President Donald Trump issued an executive order on his first day in office to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. Also, the U.S. sent no official representatives to COP30.
The Global Mutirão "urgently advances" efforts to scale up climate action funding from rich countries to poor ones to $1.3 trillion per year by 2035. But total international aid from official donors fell by 7.1 percent to just over $212 billion last year. Even taking into account contributions from multilateral financial institutions and making generous assumptions that include "mobilizing" private investments, climate finance for developing countries was around $116 billion in 2022.
On the other hand, the International Energy Agency reports that private commercial investments in no- and low-carbon energy technologies are now outstripping those in fossil fuels. Even so, fossil fuels continue to provide the bulk of global primary energy production.

Despite more than 30 years of climate change negotiations, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise as concomitantly do global average temperatures.


The increase in carbon dioxide emissions in 2024 was the highest single-year record and last year was also the warmest in the instrumental record.
American Enterprise Institute senior science and technology fellow Roger Pielke Jr. points out that in the Global Mutirão decision, the United Nations climate change negotiators are taking unwarranted credit for lower projected temperatures in 2100.
In their "celebration of the 10-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement," the negotiators claim that "significant collective progress towards the Paris Agreement temperature goal has been made, from an expected global temperature increase of more than 4 °C according to some projections prior to the adoption of the Agreement to an increase in the range of 2.3–2.5 °C and a bending of the emission curve based on the full implementation of the latest nationally determined contributions."
In support of this alleged achievement, the UNFCCC secretariat supplied this illustration.

The "before" trend in the chart is based on worst-case greenhouse gas emissions scenarios that have long been known to be highly implausible, not least because they projected that the world would be burning six times more coal by 2100 than now.
"The differences between the two forecasts reflect the simple fact that the red cone represents erroneous projections, while the blue cone represents a more updated understanding of where we are headed," explains Pielke over at his Substack. "The story here is that extreme emissions projections were well off track, and real-world data pointed to a much more moderate future. Spinning that course correction as the result of policy success is not supported by the evidence."
In fact, Pielke and his colleagues, using more plausible emissions scenarios, projected in 2022 that global average temperatures would rise above the preindustrial baseline (1850-1900) to "between 2 °C and 3 °C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 °C." In its COP30 Global Mutirão Decision, the U.N. climate change negotiators now basically agree with the projections made by Pielke and his colleagues.
"Even though projections of future climate change have moderated considerably in recent years," correctly observes Pielke, "the human influence on climate remains real and poses risks to our collective future." More than 30 years on, U.N. climate change negotiations have not done much to ameliorate those risks.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
It has accomplished something - the smug climate cultists that attend these revivals get to emit massive amounts of carbon while gallivanting around the planet.
Don't forget the massive amounts of money stolen from countries across the globe funnelled into their NGOs.
AND ... with the help of breathless media coverage and amplification, the shifting of the overton window on rational view of climate policy [obviously towards the emotional, irrational end] amongst the youth and general public
And the preening and hectoring that so many politicians and activists got to do on TV.
You forgot about the 100000 trees cut down to make a highway in order to get to this year's meeting
Welp, those bigly private jets consume quite a bit of Jet A.
But hey, it's all for a good cause, right?
Shame on you, Ron. You know damn well they’ve all accomplished something. Each one was a step towards world socialism and dictatorship under the guise of doing something for the climate. By that metric, they’ve been rather successful.
Where is this "dictatorship" and "world socialism" of which you speak? I see a bunch of capitalist democracies enriching their politically connected green company friends with taxpayer dollars and preferential regulatory treatment, instead of enriching their politically connected oil and coal friends with taxpayer dollars and preferential regulatory treatment.
Same shit, different friends, better optics.
That's because you're a lying pile of lefty shit.
Western democracies stealing tax payers dollars and giving them to other countries on the globe is not global socialism?
The scam as stated was to make the rich countries pay the poor countries so they do not pollute like the rich countries allegedly did for 150 years and to give them solar panels and windmills to take them out of poverty by providing them with electricity so they can cook on electric stoves instead of using poo, coal or wood and can have refrigeration, you should understand why and of course air conditioning which is the biggest draw and waste of energy because it allowed humans to migrate to drought stricken and arid regions that humans would otherwise never populate.
Prove me wrong. This is outlined in the UN and the IPCC...
That and the World Bank sending memos to countries letting them know they can now do direct payments to underprivileged countries because they removed some red tape from the system. In the memo it notes to take monies collected for the green scam climate change agenda carbon taxes and from solar and wind projects and give it to impoverished countries to avoid a mass famine they claim will occur if nothing is done by 2030...
Is there any whack job globalist bullshit that Reason libertarians won't swallow whole. Hey I worry about the FCOCs as much as the next guy but the Reason science writer always takes stupid to a whole new level.
Well done. Did you coin the term FCOC?
I did indeed.
By “Reason libertarian”, you mean far left Neo Marxist, right?
A Reason Libertarian wants to Chase the rainbow.
You folks are insane.
You are full of shit.
"Accomplished Almost Nothing"
How can you say that?! Thousands of delegates from third world countries have enjoyed all-expenses paid vacations to the nicest vacation spots in the world over those thirty years!
I'm starting to think this whole "climate change" thing is a scam.
If you think that you are an idiot.
You literally just read about how it's all a scam. And you're still going with it.
Pakistan or India? Which are you?
You think thousands of scientists spent 40 years faking data for what? Pissing off morons like you?
MAGAs are the dumbest shits on the planet. Fucking toxic morons.
When's the next scheduled End Of The World?
The global is warming! No wait, it's cooling! NO WAIT, it's warming! No wait.... um.... climate change! See, in the summer it gets hot, and in the winter it gets cold! DOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!
Scam is a bit harsh.
"Highly exaggerated" is better.
And on the journalistic side, "exaggerated to the point of falsehood" is more accurate. As the narrative in the press has barely any resemblance to the underlying data.
And don't forget that several IPCC authors (notably Judith Curry) actually quit after the first few editions, saying that only negative news was allowed.
Think about it. Does it seem reasonable that in 2C of warming, that ONLY negative items would result? But publishing positive results simply does not allow you to get published. And that's not counting the extreme reaction if you say the obvious, that CO2 reductions have utterly failed by any and every metric despite trillions of investment. As far as humanitarian investment, it's one of the least effective actions we've ever done.
But if you say that, you're not allowed to be a climate scientist.
Seriously, the science convinced countless skeptics who resisted the data for years. The only holdouts with any legitimate credentials still claiming climate change is a "scam" are contrarian grifters and self-interested people in or funded by the carbon industry.
I love how all these morons (including Reason writers) claim "hurr, it's a scam, carbon emissions are still going up in spite of decades of negotiations" -- uh, yeah, because...you folks have fought every policy initiative tooth and nail and killed most of them.
Tell me when the world is going to end.
That's what this whole thing is. So, tell me when the world is going to end. Heck, ballpark it. 2 years? 10? 50? 200?
Climate Change advocacy is terrorism. Plain and simple.
"Seriously, the science convinced countless skeptics who resisted the data for years."
Seriously, read at least one of these and get back to us, lefty shit-for-brains.
“Unsettled”, Steven Koonin
“Apocalypse Never”, Michael Shellenberger
“Climate Uncertainty and Risk”, Judith Curry
“Fossil Future”, Alex Epstein
“Power Hungry”, Robert Bryce
“False Alarm”, Bjorn Lomborg
Is climate change real? Of fucking course it is. Montreal had 4 mile thick ice on it 14,500 years ago.
Where's the fucking ICE now? Gee it melted. So that means it got warmer 14,500 years ago and has been warmer ever since.
Did humans cause the ICE to melt for the last 14,500 years? Fuck no.
Is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing any effect? Yes in fact it is. It is helping plants to grow, increasing food crop productions and helping push back the deserts because more CO2 makes crops more drought resistant.
As for the idea that humans are causing the earth to warm due to driving cars and heating homes, that is completely irrational and has never been proven through science.
Correlation does not prove causation. The correlation found from the ICE core data proves the earth will in fact warm over the next 150 years BECAUSE it came out of a mini ice age in the 1800's. Nothing to do with carbon outputs of humanity.
Prove me wrong. Then admit you called people morons and apologize... You allowed yourself to become gaslit by fake propaganda but we will not hold that against you, just admit you were wrong and move on.
"...MAGAs are the dumbest shits on the planet..."
Not within spitting distance of the MGs if the world- they dum, DUMB!
Is climate change real? Of fucking course it is. Montreal had 4 mile thick ice on it 14,500 years ago.
Where's the fucking ICE now? Gee it melted. So that means it got warmer 14,500 years ago and has been warmer ever since.
Did humans cause the ICE to melt for the last 14,500 years? Fuck no.
Is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing any effect? Yes in fact it is. It is helping plants to grow, increasing food crop productions and helping push back the deserts because more CO2 makes crops more drought resistant.
As for the idea that humans are causing the earth to warm due to driving cars and heating homes, that is completely irrational and has never been proven through science.
Correlation does not prove causation. The correlation found from the ICE core data proves the earth will in fact warm over the next 150 years BECAUSE it came out of a mini ice age in the 1800's. Nothing to do with carbon outputs of humanity.
Prove me wrong. Then admit you called people morons and apologize... You allowed yourself to become gaslit by fake propaganda but we will not hold that against you, just admit you were wrong and move on.
Where's the fucking ICE now?
In Chicago and DC.
Molly, haven't you read the numerous emails and private communications among the so-called scientists about how they have to fake the data to make it look scary?
You can judge for yourself. Look up the list of hurricanes that made landfall in the US since 1865 when records were first kept. It's not the kind of data you can fake since a hurricane is pretty obvious. Plot the number per year. The best fit straight line is almost dead straight - it has the slightest downward slope, i.e. fewer hurricanes as CO2 went up. If anything, hurricanes in the mid 19th C that arrived in very sparsely populated parts of Florida could be missed - which would only make the slope more negative.
Do you also believe in witches?
"If you think that you are an idiot."
If you don't understand that it's true by now, count yourself gullible enough to believe that "Chariots of the Gods" was non-fiction.
And it is obvious from your posts that you are fucking ignorant enough to do so.
Almost accomplished nothing?
They convinced the world to provide billions to The Maldives to stop those islands from sinking!
The money obviously helped because the sea levels actually went down slightly while 3 new Airports and many high end resorts were built there.
How can you say that was a scam? The Maldives were saved.
More testing needed!
What do you mean accomplished nothing Bailey
They have been wildly successful.
At enriching people, increasing political power - keeping everyone on the same page. You can't have a coordinated effort under the nose of the public if everyone isn't on first name basis when scheming.
Oh, did you mean about climate change? Yeah, that has always just been the cover story for seizing power.
If you all were honest with yourself and admitted that - and so stopped giving them top cover - they'd at least have to find a new grift.
It is laughable that you still think their goal is to "fix" climate change.
Like homelessness, fixing the "climate problem" is the last thing they want to do.
And it is impossible since human contributions are essentially nil. The only way we could impact the climate would be to have a nuclear war.
Climate Change as a cause is essentially now a dead letter.
No one cares about it any more, not even Greta Thunberg gets her blood up over it.
It's over and the left have moved on to other targets. It's so five minutes ago. The thing is never the thing, the thing is always the revolution.
Climate change is not some political issue that can come and go. It is real and affecting us now.
“Bzzzt!!!!!!!”
Wrong! Dumbass!
You may fuck off now Tony.
Sure, keep throwing cans of soup on paintings... the rest of us are going to get on with our lives.
"...It is real and affecting us now..."
Lying piles of lefty shit are all about assertions, never about evidence.
Cite(s), with factual evidence, asshole. Exactly how is it "affecting us"?
Is climate change real? Of fucking course it is. Montreal had 4 mile thick ice on it 14,500 years ago.
Where's the fucking ICE now? Gee it melted. So that means it got warmer 14,500 years ago and has been warmer ever since.
Did humans cause the ICE to melt for the last 14,500 years? Fuck no.
Is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing any effect? Yes in fact it is. It is helping plants to grow, increasing food crop productions and helping push back the deserts because more CO2 makes crops more drought resistant.
As for the idea that humans are causing the earth to warm due to driving cars and heating homes, that is completely irrational and has never been proven through science.
Correlation does not prove causation. The correlation found from the ICE core data shows the earth will in fact warm over the next 150 years BECAUSE the earth came out of a mini ice age in the 1800's. Nothing to do with carbon outputs of humanity.
Prove me wrong. Then admit you called people morons and apologize... You allowed yourself to become gaslit by fake propaganda but we will not hold that against you, just admit you were wrong and move on.
I think the next 'target' (I'd say institutional device for accumulating, maintaining, and exercising power) is 'global health threats'. This has been found to be infinitely more effective than global warming.
And we have the recent Hunan Flu as a roadmap for them to use.
^+ many.
Trump was at the UN, telling them to get in front of the curve. That grease-ball Newsom was across town, telling an audience of 50 or so who dedicated he is to 'fixing' the climate. He's far, far, behind the curve by now.
More than 40 years of failed predictions; you need a slug's IQ (like MG, Newsom or our newest lying pile of lefty shit) to keep believing.
No one cares about it any more, not even Greta Thunberg gets her blood up over it.
Chickens... roost.
Again, 10 yrs. ago it was pointed out that all the "Climate DOOM!" we were teaching to grade schoolers was having the opposite of the intended effect. Guess who is voting now.
Only 6 more years until the world ends (again).
The COP summits have all failed because the US never provided strong leadership on climate change. And this was because the Republicans have always been against any and all efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses.
Put the blame where the blame belongs. You can' sabotage something and then point at it and say that because it did not work it could never work.
That’s ok, AGW/climate change is pure bullshit anyway. Just another mechanism to introduce far left wealth redistribution globally.
Real climate change policy has never been tried.
When did you become carbon neutral and how did you accomplish it?
“The COP summits have all failed because the US never provided strong leadership on climate change. And this was because the Republicans have always been against any and all efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses.”
COP30 was the first that an official US delegation was not in attendance. So, what’s the excuse for the failure of the previous 29?
I’m all for reasonable protections of the environment, but the UN is not the organization to lead that effort. I mean really, the literal poster child of the climate change movement doesn’t attend COP meetings calling them ineffective and nothing more than greenwashing.
Anyone ever heard of a FAULTY preconceived notion?
Wipe the BS from your commie-indoctrinated brain and open your eyes.
"The increase in carbon dioxide emissions in 2024 was the highest single-year record and last year was also the warmest in the instrumental record."
If that is TRUE - what's the common sense conclusion about *all* this E.V., catalytic converter, regeneration nightmare, mandating going on? That it is not enough ... or ... that it's having the complete opposite effect as "preconceived" by dummy-indoctrination?
Now explain how (love that they included this for once instead of cherry-picked) the massive temperature drop of 0.6 in 5-years from 1940 to 1950 happened? Surely no-one would conclude there wasn't any fossil fuel burning going on during WWII?
The whole "'Guns' have to control the weather" narrative is the only reality going on to expand political power over such a minuscule amount the pure belief that such measurement is even accurately possible is absurd. It's nothing short of Chicken-Little running around the media yelling the sky is falling down and his 'Gun' gang has to fix it by STEALING your earnings.
Remember at the start of the Covid panic, when there was a sudden complete media silence regarding "herd immunity"? Nothing untoward there, right?
I feel that the climate activist reaction to nuclear power is much the same. Anything that can generate a good anti-nuclear "OOOGA-BOOGA!!" reaction might, just maybe, get some promotion in the legacy media. Otherwise, nothing except the occasional recitation of anti-nuclear talking points. This is not the position of real pro-human, pro-climate activism.
The grift that keeps on giving: Michigan governor "wretched" Gretchen Whitmer wants to cut own 400 acres of trees in northern Michigan to install a solar farm.
Yeah right.....Michigan total solar days ranges from 156 -171. Total sunny days from 64 -75.
Someone is planning to cash in on this project. Who could it be? Maybe some of Whitmer's family and friends? Maybe she took some lessons from Nancy Pelosi.
Even Nazi shits occasionally find an acorn. You can go back under your rock now, slimebag.
Sounds like a copout.