COP30: The Scoreboard From Toronto – Who Won, Who Lost, and What Antalya Has to Fix

Nelson Switzer
Nov 25
5 min read

When I wrote “Watching COP30 From Toronto: Why I Stayed Home, and Why I Am More Optimistic Than Ever,” I argued that the real climate work has moved from negotiation halls to boardrooms, factories and cap tables.

Now that the dust (and smoke, literally) has settled in Belém, and Carbon Brief has done the forensic work of unpacking what actually got agreed, I’m even more convinced I made the right call.

COP30 was billed as a COP of “truth” and “implementation.” What we got instead was a mixed scoreboard: some genuine wins, some painful misses, and a loud reminder that the UN process still isn’t structurally designed to deliver the kind of transition and real-economy opportunity impact the science and global populous demands.

Let’s talk about who won, who lost, and what COP31 in Antalya needs to do differently.

The Headline: Progress by Committee, Not by Physics

On paper, Belém delivered a few notable outcomes:

A “global mutirão” (collective effort) package that tries to bundle finance, trade and the 1.5°C goal into one umbrella decision.
A goal to “triple” adaptation finance, albeit with the baseline removed and the deadline pushed to 2035...a soft win wrapped in ambiguity.
A new just transition “mechanism”, which, for the first time in a COP text, anchors labour rights, human rights and marginalized communities at the heart of transition language.
Voluntary initiatives like a “global implementation accelerator” and a “Belém mission to 1.5°C,” which sound promising but lack hard obligations.

And yet:

The final decision does not contain a fossil-fuel roadmap, despite weeks of pressure from a large coalition of countries. Instead, the Brazilian presidency promised to bring forward separate roadmaps on fossil fuels and deforestation at the next COP.
COP reform, which was on the agenda for the first time, produced what one observer bluntly called a “nothingburger”...a short text politely inviting parties to “pursue efficiency.”

So yes, there was progress. But not at the pace, or with the clarity, that physics, or capital markets, require.

Who Won at COP30?

1. The Incrementalists - The biggest winners in Belém were the defenders of the status quo. That would be those who are comfortable with progress as long as it doesn’t touch the core of the fossil fuel system too directly or too quickly.

They avoided:

Any binding global roadmap away from fossil fuels
Hard numbers on near-term mitigation consistent with 1.5°C
Structural COP reforms that would reduce their ability to stall

Instead, they got more process, more dialogue and more “voluntary” initiatives.

For them, delay is a feature, not a bug.

2. Process Traditionalists - Inside the UN process, there’s a constituency whose main job is to protect the machinery itself...the agenda, the procedures, the consensus rule.

They also came out ahead.

Efforts to streamline the agenda, cap delegation sizes, sunset dormant items and actually make the system more functional were pared back to a vague commitment to “efficiency” with real discussion postponed to yet another meeting.

If you thrive in complexity and procedural gridlock, Belém was a solid COP.

3. Just Transition Advocates (Partial Win)

One bright spot: the just transition work programme finally landed on an institutional “mechanism” rather than being watered down to a mere action plan. That matters.

For the first time, a COP decision links labour rights, human rights, the right to a clean environment, the inclusion of marginalized groups to the delivery of climate ambition.

It’s not a fossil phase-out. It doesn’t move enough money. But in political terms, it’s a real foothold.

Who Lost?

1. Climate-Vulnerable Countries - Small island states, least-developed countries and many African nations arrived in Belém wanting three things:

A credible pathway away from fossil fuels
Stronger finance commitments, especially on adaptation and loss & damage
A process that recognizes their limited capacity to fight the same battles every year

They got:

A diluted adaptation finance goal, with the baseline removed and the deadline slipped.
Slow progress on loss and damage funding.
No fossil roadmap in the core text.

In football (soccer) terms: they dominated possession, had the better argument, and still left the pitch (field) with a draw that feels like a loss.

2. The 1.5°C Goal (At Least Symbolically) - For the first time, a COP text openly acknowledges that the world is likely to overshoot 1.5°C, and talks about limiting the extent and duration of that overshoot.

From a scientific honesty perspective, that’s overdue.

From a political perspective, it risks normalizing the idea that overshoot, and the damages that come with it, is acceptable business-as-usual, rather than a failure to act.

If you’re an investor in climate resilience, adaptation and recovery, this is both a warning and an opportunity. If you’re a community on the frontlines, it’s terrifying.

3. The Idea That COPs Are Where the Real Economy Turns - Belém reinforced the core thesis of my earlier piece: COPs are now the scoreboard, not the game.

The game is being played in:

Chinese and Indian power markets
US and EU industrial policy
Brazilian, Indonesian and African land use
Corporate capex decisions and pension-fund allocations

COP30 did not produce the kind of clear, signal on energy transition that would materially shift these flows. Markets will continue to move anyway, but with more noise and less guidance than we need.

Antalya’s To-Do List: What COP31 Must Pick Up

COP31 will take place in Antalya, Turkey, with Australia presiding over the negotiations. This is an unusual split deal that, in itself, is a symbol of how political and process-heavy this whole circus has become.

If Belém was the “COP of truth,” Antalya needs to be the COP of consequences.

Here’s what that would look like:

Turn Roadmaps into Reality
Put Real Numbers on Finance
Make COP Reform Real, Not Rhetorical At a minimum:
Elevate Implementation Deals Above Wordsmithing

That’s the kind of COP that would genuinely move markets.

So, Was I Right to Stay Home?

Reading the Belém outcome from a cold sidewalk in Toronto, my conclusion is:

Yes, I was right to stay home.
Yes, COP still matters, but mostly as a mirror.
And yes, I am still optimistic, because the real engine of the transition is no longer waiting for permission.