UN Climate Change Deal Made Without Any Mention Of Fossil Fuel—Outrage Erupts

A historic U.N. climate agreement has sparked fury, as almost 200 countries approved a deal that entirely omits the words 'fossil fuel,' prompting outrage from climate scientists, negotiators, and vulnerable nations who accuse world leaders of betrayal.

The climate summit in Belém, Brazil, culminated in a deal hailed by its architects as a breakthrough on financial support for climate adaptation, but slammed by critics for excluding any explicit plan to tackle fossil fuel use.

Despite the triple-ing of adaptation funding, negotiators from more than 80 countries had pushed for a roadmap to phase out coal, oil, and gas; their demands vanished in the final text.

No Mention of the Drivers of the Crisis

The final COP30 text makes no reference to fossil fuels, a glaring omission given that greenhouse-gas emissions from coal, oil, and gas remain the primary cause of global warming. Earlier drafts included language about 'possible routes' toward a fossil fuel phase-out, but that was removed under intense pressure from oil-producing states.

A collective of more than 90 nations, including Germany, the UK, France, and Colombia, had threatened to block any final agreement that lacked a concrete roadmap. But influential petrostates, notably Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India, stymied that push, ultimately winning the omission.

The outcome has been described as a 'take-it-or-leave-it' manoeuvre by critics that echoed the frustration of countries that argue the deal diminishes science in favour of political expediency.

Triple Funding, But Delayed and Vague

While the agreement lacks fossil fuel accountability, it does increase climate finance: negotiators agreed to triple adaptation funding to £92 billion ($120 billion) annually. But the deadline for achieving that target was pushed back by five years, leaving many developing nations feeling short-changed.

Climate campaigners were scathing. Harjeet Singh of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation called the outcome 'an insult to every community currently underwater or on fire,' condemning the failure to hit a £300 billion (approx. $360 billion) ambition for adaptation funding.

Even among negotiators, there was open fury. Panama's Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez accused the deal of complicity: 'A climate decision that cannot even say "fossil fuels" is not neutrality, it is complicity ... Science has been deleted from COP30 because it offends the polluters.'

The omission comes at a moment when legal pressure on fossil fuel producers is intensifying. In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a binding-in-authority advisory opinion declaring that states may be legally liable for their role in fossil fuel production, consumption, subsidies, and licensing.

According to the ICJ, failure by states to regulate these activities could constitute an 'internationally wrongful act,' opening the door to reparations: restitution, compensation, or satisfaction, for harmed countries. The court described climate change as 'an urgent and existential threat' and stated that a right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is part of international human rights law.

Broken Promises, Global Rage

Diplomats and campaigners say COP30's toothless agreement threatens to undermine global credibility on climate ambition. More than 80 nations had coalesced around a fossil-fuel roadmap; in the end, they were overpowered.

Colombia's Daniela Durán González, head of international affairs for her environment ministry, condemned the result bluntly: 'There is no mitigation if we cannot discuss transitioning away from fossil fuels.'

Brazil's COP presidency quietly promised to issue a separate fossil fuel transition plan, but one that lacks the force and mutual accountability of the U.N. agreement itself. Many see that as a face-saving measure rather than a meaningful commitment.

For island states, the omission is personal. The ICJ case was driven by Vanuatu and Pacific youth activists who argued that their very survival depends on decisive climate action. Environmental justice advocates warn that without a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, the continued rise in global temperatures will disproportionately harm the poorest, most vulnerable communities.

The absence of fossil fuel accountability in the COP30 deal is not merely a diplomatic failure; critics argue it represents a moral abdication. Countries that demanded the roadmap now say they were shoved aside in favour of economic interests and fossil fuel giants.

'There is no excuse for this cowardice under the guise of diplomacy,' says Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa.