The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Belém, Brazil, has concluded with an agreement dubbed “Global Mutirão.” This term originates from the Tupi-Guarani language family, meaning ‘collective’ or ‘mutual cooperation,’ which was championed by the Brazilian Presidency to emphasize global solidarity. However, instead of celebrating a climate breakthrough, the conference left behind a bitter taste and major questions.
Below is a summary of the key inconsistencies and controversies that arose during the two weeks of negotiations, marked by protest, a fire, and massive carbon market lobbying.
Contradiction in the Indonesian Delegation: Climate Commitment vs. Business Interests
Indonesia reaffirmed its climate commitment through the President’s Special Envoy for Climate and Energy, Hashim Djojohadikusumo, who led the delegation at the Leaders Summit. On Thursday, November 6, 2025, Hashim, representing Prabowo Subianto, stated Indonesia’s readiness to strengthen climate action toward its Net Zero Emission (NZE) target by 2060 or sooner.
Hashim mentioned that this commitment includes developing the renewable energy mix to 23% by 2030, implementing the Forestry and Other Land Uses (FOLU) Net Sink, and pledging $1 billion for the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF).
However, the background and composition of the Indonesian Delegation (DELRI) came under sharp scrutiny. Hashim Djojohadikusumo himself is the younger brother of Prabowo Subianto and a businessman from the Arsari Group, whose companies operate in destructive extractive sectors, including palm oil and fossil fuels. This immediately raises a huge question: when a delegation is led and funded by a businessman whose operations harm the environment, to whom are these climate commitments truly directed?
Domination of Corporate Sponsors and the Carbon Trading Agenda
The list of corporate sponsors funding DELRI includes major names from high-emission and extractive industries with problematic environmental records, such as Adaro Energy, Pertamina, PLN, Harita Nickel, Vale, APP Sinarmas, and others.
The suspicion that the market agenda took precedence was evident in Indonesia’s focus at its Pavilion: the carbon market mechanism, with the ambitious target of accumulating Rp16 trillion (approximately $1 billion) in carbon sale value. Civil society critics consider this contradictory, financially motivated, and an enabler for the continuation of the fossil fuel business. Indonesia even failed to join the 80 nations pushing for a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. If the ultimate goal of COP is to stop global warming, doesn’t focusing on “carbon sales” merely provide a license to continue emissions?
Indigenous Protests and the Irony of the Fire
The irony of COP30 continued outside the negotiation rooms. Precisely on Thursday, November 6, 2025, the same day as the Leaders Summit, a physical scuffle broke out in the Blue Zone between Indigenous Peoples and UN security personnel. They fought to break through the entrance, carrying banners that read, “Our forest is not for sale,” demonstrating their frustration over the marginalization of their voices.
The situation worsened on November 20, 2025, when a fire occurred in the pavilion area, reportedly caused by an electrical device, forcing a total evacuation and disrupting the schedule of meetings. When a conference aimed at saving the world from a climate “fire” suffers an internal fire, isn’t that the most embarrassing symbol of failure?
Ambiguous Final Agreement
Negotiations ended contentiously, extending beyond the scheduled close. China, through its Delegation Head Li Gao, praised “Global Mutirão” as strong evidence of the political will to respond to climate change.
However, behind the political praise lies a harsh fact: the agreement did not explicitly mention the phase-out of fossil fuels. The phrase “strive to do better,” pushed by China, was successfully included in the final text, but without a firm commitment to transitioning away from dirty energy. If the negotiating nations are unwilling to say “stop” to fossil fuels, will the next COP produce anything more than just “striving” not to perish?
COP30 is over, yet instead of producing a memorable breakthrough, Belém merely reinforced an increasingly tiresome cycle. Every year, the cost of holding this conference swells, while the price the Earth must pay due to the delay in action becomes immeasurable. The desperate protests of the Indigenous Peoples and the ironic fire stand as mute witnesses to this systemic failure. We no longer need mere “striving to do better”; we need a profound commitment to abandon dirty energy. If this 30th COP failed to deliver sincere and courageous solutions, how many more festivals of empty promises must we hold before it is too late?
