The Amazonian Reckoning: Belém and the Last Call for Global Climate Correction
The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, scheduled for November 10th to 21st, 2025, in Belém, Brazil, set in the symbolic heart of the Amazon, marks a moment of reckoning mandated by the Paris Agreement itself. 2025 is the critical deadline for nations to submit a new, more ambitious round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), extending their climate commitments to 2035.
The context leading into Belém is stark. The Global Stocktake (GST), concluded at COP28, confirmed unequivocally that the world is woefully off-track from the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The diplomatic focus must now pivot from setting goals to enforcing implementation, accountability, and, critically, equitable finance.
The COP30 Presidency, held by Brazil, has centred its agenda on an “Ambition Framework” that seeks to cohesively link mitigation (emissions cuts), adaptation (building resilience), and finance (funding the transition). However, the real test of Belém will be its ability to bridge the massive, corrosive trust deficit between the developed and developing worlds, a chasm widened by years of unfulfilled financial pledges and contradictory policy signals from major powers. For Pakistan and other climate-vulnerable nations of the Global South, the success of this COP will be measured almost entirely by the concrete mechanisms established to deliver the trillions required for survival and a just energy transition.
The Climate Finance Chasm
For developing nations, the failure of climate finance represents the single greatest obstacle to both survival and global mitigation efforts. The historical and moral obligation of the industrialised nations to provide financial and technical assistance, encapsulated in the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” has been consistently undermined by a shortfall in delivery.
While developed countries eventually met the long-delayed commitment of mobilising $100 billion per year, the quantum of capital required for a 1.5°C-aligned world is exponentially higher. The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG)—the post-2025 finance goal—is expected to target over $1.3 trillion per year from all sources for developing nations, with a substantial portion of public funds from developed nations. The roadmap to closing this gap, the “Baku to Belém Roadmap,” will be the central financial focus.
Beyond mitigation, the adaptation and loss and damage shortfalls are most acutely felt in countries already crippled by climate disaster. According to UN reports, the developing world needs hundreds of billions annually for adaptation alone, yet the funding delivered remains far below those needs. The Loss and Damage Fund, a hard-won victory at COP27, remains largely undercapitalised, its reserves barely a fraction of the estimated hundreds of billions needed to cover permanent climate costs. Pakistan, having suffered catastrophic floods and ongoing heatwaves, views the inadequacy of this fund not just as a financial gap, but as an existential threat.
The reality is that climate finance is not charity; it is an investment in global stability and a debt owed to the victims of emissions disproportionately generated by others. Until Belém produces clear, measurable, and mandatory mechanisms for the consistent delivery of public, concessional finance, the Global South will rightly withhold its full ambition on mitigation, arguing that its limited resources must first be directed toward protecting its citizens. The operationalisation of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), turning abstract targets into measurable resilience indicators and aligning them with funding, is therefore a key deliverable.
The Geopolitical Divergence
The submission of the new 2035 NDCs provides a platform to observe the starkly diverging climate trajectories of the world’s two largest economies, the United States and China.
The United States’ position, especially following a change in administration, is one of profound instability and multilateral withdrawal. The renewed focus on domestic drilling for oil and gas, reversing earlier policy shifts, sends a contradictory and alarming signal to the world. Crucially, the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, combined with a reluctance to commit substantial, new funds to multilateral climate initiatives like the Loss and Damage Fund, actively undermines the framework of global cooperation. The US’s actions represent a dual policy failure: a lack of ambitious mitigation at home, coupled with the withholding of essential gas transformation funds and technological support to developing countries. This stance not only jeopardises the country’s own long-term climate targets, but also actively erodes the trust required for other major economies to raise their ambitions in Belém.
In sharp contrast, China presents a complex, dual-track reality. While it remains the world’s largest emitter and continues to grapple with domestic energy security challenges, its investment in the green industrial revolution is unprecedented. The country’s industrial policy has led to a continuous rise in the proportion of non-fossil energy in its mix, primarily through a massive expansion of solar and wind capacity. Crucially, China’s acceleration in green industries—photovoltaics (PV) and electric vehicles (EVs)—has had a cascading global effect, significantly reducing the costs of clean technology worldwide. This industrial momentum is effectively speeding up the global energy transition for all nations, including those in the Global South, by providing access to affordable clean technologies. Ahead of COP30, China’s announcement of new, clarified goals for 2035—its first absolute emissions reduction target from peak levels by 7%-10%—is anticipated to boost global confidence.
The fate of the 1.5°C limit rests on the outcome of the new NDCs submitted in Belém. The Amazonian setting demands an honest discussion about the interconnected crises of climate and nature. Implementation, accountability, and, most critically, climate justice must be the three pillars on which the 2025 accord is built. Anything less will be a tragic footnote in the history of a planet that ran out of time.
