5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Latest News
Climate Talks End With 'Empty Deal' That Fails on Forests, Finance, and Fossil Fuels
"COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future," one campaigner said.
Nov 22, 2025
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, concluded on Saturday in Belém, Brazil with a deal that does not even include the words "fossil fuels"—the burning of which scientists agree is the primary cause of the climate crisis.
Environmental and human rights advocates expressed disappointment in the final Global Mutirão decision, which they say failed to deliver road maps to transition away from oil, gas, and coal and to halt deforestation—another important driver of the rise in global temperatures since the preindustrial era.
“This is an empty deal," said Nikki Reisch, the Center for International Environmental Law's (CIEL) director of climate and energy program. "COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future. The science is settled and the law is clear: We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay."
COP30 was notable in that it was the first international climate conference to which the US did not send a formal delegation, following President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Yet, even without a Trump administration presence, observers were disappointed in the power of fossil fuel-producing countries to derail ambition. The final document also failed to heed the warning of a fire that broke out in the final days of the talks, which many saw as a symbol for the rapid heating of the Earth.
“Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30."
“The venue bursting into flames couldn’t be a more apt metaphor for COP30’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. “Even without the Trump administration there to bully and cajole, petrostates once again shut down meaningful progress at this COP. These negotiations keep hitting a wall because wealthy nations profiting off polluting fossil fuels fail to offer the needed financial support to developing countries and any meaningful commitment to move first.”
The talks on a final deal nearly broke down between Friday and Saturday as a coalition of more than 80 countries who favored more ambitious language faced off against fossil fuel-producing nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India.
During the dispute, Colombia's delegate said the deal "falls far short of reflecting the magnitude of the challenges that parties—especially the most vulnerable—are confronting on the ground," according to BBC News.
Finally, a deal was struck around 1:35 pm local time, The Guardian reported. The deal circumvented the fossil fuel debate by affirming the "United Arab Emirates Consensus," referring to when nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28 in the UAE. In addition, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said that stronger language on the fossil fuel transition could be negotiated at an interim COP in six months.
On deforestation, the deal similarly restated the COP26 pledge to halt tree felling by 2030 without making any new plans or commitments.
Climate justice advocates were also disappointed in the finance commitments from Global North to Global South countries. While wealthier countries pledged to triple adaptation funds to $120 billion per year, many saw the amount as insufficient, and the funds were promised by 2035, not 2030 as poorer countries had wanted.
"We must reflect on what was possible, and what is now missing: the road maps to end forest destruction, and fossil fuels, and an ongoing lack of finance," Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali told The Guardian. "More than 80 countries supported a transition away from fossil fuels, but they were blocked from agreeing on this change by countries that refused to support this necessary and urgent step. More than 90 countries supported improved protection of forests. That too did not make it into the final agreement. Unfortunately, the text failed to deliver the scale of change needed.”
Climate campaigners did see hope in the final agreement's strong language on human rights and its commitment to a just transition through the Belém Action Mechanism, which aims to coordinate global cooperation toward protecting workers and shifting to clean energy.
“It’s a big win to have the Belém Action Mechanism established with the strongest-ever COP language around Indigenous and worker rights and biodiversity protection,” Su said. “The BAM agreement is in stark contrast to this COP’s total flameout on implementing a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout.”
Oxfam Brasil executive director Viviana Santiago struck a similar note, saying: “COP30 offered a spark of hope but far more heartbreak, as the ambition of global leaders continues to fall short of what is needed for a livable planet. People from the Global South arrived in Belém with hope, seeking real progress on adaptation and finance, but rich nations refused to provide crucial adaptation finance. This failure leaves the communities at the frontlines of the climate crisis exposed to the worst impacts and with few options for their survival."
"The climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action."
Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at Oil Change International, said: “Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30. The EU, UK, Australia, and other wealthy nations are to blame for COP’s failure to adopt a road map on fossil fuels by refusing to commit to phase out first or put real public money on the table for the crisis they have caused. Still, amid this flawed outcome, there are glimmers of real progress. The Belém Action Mechanism is a major win made possible by movements and Global South countries that puts people’s needs and rights at the center of climate action."
Indigenous leaders applauded language that recognized their land rights and traditional knowledge as climate solutions and recognized people of African descent for the first time. However, they still argued the COP process could do more to enable the full participation of Indigenous communities.
"Despite being referred to as an Indigenous COP and despite the historic achievement in the Just Transition Programme, it became clear that Indigenous Peoples continue to be excluded from the negotiations, and in many cases, we were not given the floor in negotiation rooms. Nor have most of our proposals been incorporated," said Emil Gualinga of the Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku, Ecuador. "The militarization of the COP shows that Indigenous Peoples are viewed as threats, and the same happens in our territories: Militarization occurs when Indigenous Peoples defend their rights in the face of oil, mining, and other extractive projects."
Many campaigners saw hope in the alliances that emerged beyond the purview of the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, from a group of 24 countries who have agreed to collaborate on a plan to transition off fossil fuels in line with the Paris goals of limiting temperature increases to 1.5°C to the Indigenous and civil society activists who marched against fossil fuels in Belém.
“The barricade that rich countries built against progress and justice in the COP30 process stands in stark contrast to the momentum building outside the climate talks," Ioualalen said. "Countries and people from around the world loudly are demanding a fair and funded phaseout, and that is not going to stop. We didn’t win the full justice outcome we need in Belém, but we have new arenas to keep fighting."
In April 2026, Colombia and the Netherlands will cohost the First International Conference on Fossil Fuel Phaseout. At the same time, 18 countries have signed on in support of a treaty to phase out fossil fuels.
"However big polluters may try to insulate themselves from responsibility or edit out the science, it does not place them above the law," Reisch said. "That’s why governments committed to tackling the crisis at its source are uniting to move forward outside the UNFCCC—under the leadership of Colombia and Pacific Island states—to phase out fossil fuels rapidly, equitably, and in line with 1.5°C. The international conference on fossil fuel phaseout in Colombia next April is the first stop on the path to a livable future. A Fossil Fuel Treaty is the road map the world needs and leaders failed to deliver in Belém.”
These efforts must contend with the influence not only of fossil fuel-producing nations, but also the fossil fuel industry itself, which sent a record 1,602 lobbyists to COP30.
“COP30 witnessed a record number of lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and carbon capture sector," said CIEL fossil economy director Lili Fuhr. "With 531 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) lobbyists—surpassing the delegations of 62 nations—and over 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists making up 1 in every 25 attendees, these industries deeply infiltrated the talks, pushing dangerous distractions like CCS and geoengineering. Yet, this unprecedented corporate capture has met fiercer resistance than ever with people and progressive governments—with science and law on their side—demanding a climate process that protects people and planet over profit."
Indeed, Jamie Henn of Make Polluters Pay told Common Dreams that the polluting nations and industries overplayed their hand, arguing that Big Oil and "petro states, including the United States, did their best to kill progress at COP30, stripping the final agreement of any mention of fossil fuels. But their opposition may have backfired: More countries than ever are now committed to pursuing a phaseout road map and this April's conference in Colombia on a potential 'Fossil Fuel Treaty' has been thrust into the spotlight, with support from Brazil, the European Union, and others."
Henn continued: "The COP negotiations are a consensus process, which means it's nearly impossible to get strong language on fossil fuels past blockers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US, who skipped these talks, but clearly opposed any meaningful action. But you can't block reality: The transition from fossils to clean energy is accelerating every day."
"From Indigenous protests to the thunderous rain on the roof of the conference every afternoon, this COP in the heart of the Amazon was forced to confront realities that these negotiations so often try to ignore," he concluded. "I think the climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action. Climate has always been a fight against fossil fuels, and that battle is now fully underway."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Alito Temporarily Reinstates Texas' Trump-Requested Redrawn Maps
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the new congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
Nov 22, 2025
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily restored a controversial Trump-backed Texas redistricting plan that could grant Republicans an extra five seats in the House of Representatives.
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the redrawn congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
"It is ordered that the November 18, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21-cv-259 is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court," Alito wrote around one hour after Texas appealed the district court's ruling.
Alito was the justice to issue the stay because he handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again."
Friday's ruling is not the final say on the fate of Texas' new maps, but allows the state to continue preparations for the 2026 midterm elections under the redistricting while the full Supreme Court considers the case. Texas has asked for a ruling by December 1, one week before the December 8 filling deadline for congressional races. The state is set to hold primary elections in March.
Alito has asked the civil rights organizations fighting to block the maps for more materials by Monday, November 24—a sign, according to Politico, that he planned to put the case "on a fast-track."
Texas was the first state to heed President Donald Trump's request to redraw its maps in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections and attempt to prevent the Democrats from retaking the House. In response, Missouri and North Carolina also redrew their maps to give the GOP one extra seat each. However, California voters then retaliated by approving a proposition to redistrict in a way that would see an additional five Democrats elected. All of these plans now face legal challenges.
As the fight for control of the House continues through maps and courts, Texas Democratic activists haven't given up on voters.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again," said Allison Campolo, who chairs the Democratic Party of Tarrant County, Texas, on social media Friday, "but—We in Texas know the cavalry doesn't come for us. We save ourselves."
"100 people came out to our party headquarters tonight and we were absolutely PACKED with candidates running for every seat and bench from the top to the bottom of the ticket," Campolo continued. "Texas Democrats are here to save our county, our state, and our country. We'll be seeing you at the polls."
Keep Reading
Show Less
After Threats Throughout NYC Campaign, Trump Lauds Mamdani at White House
"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," Trump said of Mamdani after their White House meeting. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
Nov 21, 2025
While Gothamist's characterization of Friday's White House meeting between President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani as "a surprising bromance" was likely an overstretch, the far-right US leader did offer copious praise for the democratic socialist during their amiable encounter.
Asked by a reporter if he would feel comfortable living in New York City under Mamdani, Trump—with Mamdani standing beside him in the Oval Office—replied: “Yeah, I would. I really would. Especially after the meeting."
“We agree on a lot more than I thought," the president continued. "I want him to do a great job, and we’ll help him do a great job.”
Asked by another reporter if he was standing next to a “jihadist"—as Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) called Mamdani over his support for Palestinian liberation and opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza—Trump said, “No... I met with a man who is a very rational person."
"I met with a man who really wants to see New York be great again," the president added. "I think you’re going to have, hopefully, a really great mayor. The better he does, the happier I am. And we’re going to be helping him to make everybody’s dream come true. Having a strong and very safe New York.”
Comparing Mamdani to another prominent democratic socialist, who represents Vermont in the US Senate, Trump added that "Bernie Sanders and I agreed on much more than people thought."
The pair reportedly discussed contentious issues including Trump's anti-immigrant crackdown and federal invasion of several US cities including Los Angeles; Washington, DC; Portland, Maine; Chicago; and Memphis.
However, they also discussed common-ground issues including the affordability crisis, which has hit New Yorkers particularly hard.
"It was a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers," Mamdani told reporters.
Friday's friendly meeting was a stark departure from previous acrimonious exchanges between Trump and Mamdani. The president has called Mamdani a "communist lunatic” and a “total nut job," and repeatedly threatened to cut off federal funding to the nation's largest city if the leftist was elected. Trump also threatened to arrest Mamdani after the then-mayoral candidate said he would refuse to cooperate with his administration's mass deportation campaign.
Asked Friday about calling Mamdani a communist, Trump said: “He’s got views that are a little out there, but who knows. I mean, we’re going to see what works. He’s going to change, also. I changed a lot."
"I feel very confident that he can do a very good job," the president added. "I think he is going to surprise some conservative people, actually.”
For his part, Mamdani has called Trump a "despot" and the embodiment of New York City's problems, decried his "authoritarian" administration, and called himself the president's "worst nightmare." He also called Trump a "fascist" on numerous occasions.
"I've been called much worse than a despot,” Trump quipped Friday.
After their meeting, a reporter asked Mamdani if he still thought Trump is a fascist. The president interrupted as Mamdani began to respond, patting him on the arm and saying, “That’s OK, you can just say yes."
Mamdani did not compliment Trump nearly as much as the president—who posted several photos in which he posed with the mayor-elect before a portrait of President Franklin D. Roosevelt—lavished praise upon him.
Let’s be clear. @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social got Trump so charmed that Trump posted two photos of the two of them with Franklin Roosevelt’s portrait behind them AND one of just Mamdani and FDR’s portrait.
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) November 21, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Mamdani called the meeting "cordial and productive," and said that he looked forward to working with Trump to "improve life in New York," highlighting their agreement on issues like housing affordability, food and energy costs, and reducing the cost of living—issues which he said motivated voters to support both men.
Observers expressed surprise over the affable meeting, with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—one of Trump's staunchest congressional critics—asking on social media, "What the heck just happened?"
The meeting proceeded far differently than previewed by Fox News:
Numerous far-right figures were furious at Trump's genial reception of a man they've spent much of the year demonizing. Leftists mocked their angst, with the popular X account @_iamblakeley asking, "Has anyone checked in on Laura Loomer?"
The rabidly Islamophobic conspiracy theorist and staunch Trump loyalist was, in fact, having a social media meltdown.
Referring to the Republican congresswoman from Georgia who made a surprise retirement announcement on Friday, journalist Aaron Rupar wrote on Bluesky that "Trump feuding with Marjorie Taylor Greene but being in love with Zohran Mamdani was not on my November 2025 bingo card."
Some social media users noted that Trump offered Mamdani a more ringing endorsement than even some prominent Democrats.
"Trump is being nicer to Mamdani than Democratic leadership," journalist Ken Klippenstein wrote on Bluesky.
Another Bluesky account posted, "Donald Trump endorsed Zohran Mamdani before Chuck Schumer," a reference to the Senate majority leader—who never endorsed his party's nominee to lead the city they both call home.
Corporate Democrats' disdain for leftist candidates and ideology was on full display Thursday as the House of Representatives voted 285-98 in favor of a resolution "denouncing the horrors of socialism" in "all its forms," presumably including the variety that has been a dominant political force across Western democracies since shortly after World War II.
Eighty-six Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in voting for the resolution. The vote took place as Mamdani was en route to the White House.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular