Skip to main content

The Climate Tug-of-War: What Nations Want at COP30

Category
Blog
COP30
Date

An analysis of why nations' conflicting objectives may hinder climate action at COP30 by Sajid Siraj.

Sajid Siraj is an associate professor in Business Analytics & Decision Sciences at the Leeds University Business School. Sajid is also a member of the Leeds delegation for COP30.

The Climate Tug-of-War: What Nations Want at COP30

The conference halls of Belém will soon fill with diplomats carrying leather folders. Outside, the Amazon rainforest will hum with life that has no seat at the table. Welcome to COP30, where the future of Earth's climate will be decided not by science or fairness, but by an elaborate tug-of-war: hundreds of nations and tens of coalitions pulling in different directions whilst the rope frays.

After 29 climate summits over three decades, greenhouse gas emissions are still rising. We gather every year, make speeches about ambition and working together, and somehow leave with agreements that satisfy almost no one.

AI generated image of people doing a tug of war with a rope over a firey opening in the ground.

AI image generated by Sajid Siraj using Gemini

The Eight Objectives – Always There but Often Hidden

The answer lies not in what countries say they want, but in what they actually fight for. Behind the nice words, every delegation arrives with a calculator: costs, benefits, and advantages. Eight main goals - often hidden and sometimes opposite to each other - show why global climate action remains so difficult.

  1. Get more climate money. For developing countries and small island states, climate talks are mainly about securing money for action before disaster strikes—because they're facing a crisis they didn't create, with budgets that can't cope. They push for grants rather than loans that create debt, direct fund access, and support for resilient infrastructure. At COP29, they asked for $1.3 trillion per year. They were offered $300 billion. Many delegates openly called it an insult.
  2. Get paid for climate damages. This is different—it's about paying for damage already done. The Loss and Damage fund created at COP27 was historic because it finally recognised that climate change causes permanent harm that can't be fixed. Small island states watching their land disappear, African nations facing terrible droughts, Pakistan recovering from repeated devastating floods in 2022, 2024, and 2025 - they call it basic justice: if your emissions caused my disaster, you should help pay to fix it.
  3. Pay less climate money. Rich nations face voters at home who ask why their taxes should go abroad. So, they count private company investments as "climate finance," relabel existing aid as climate money, and offer loans instead of grants. The promised $100 billion per year by 2020, made at Copenhagen in 2009, still hasn't been consistently delivered. Trust breaks down with each broken promise.
  4. Avoid responsibility for past emissions. Rich nations spent decades blocking loss and damage talks, scared of trillions in legal claims. When they finally agreed to the fund, they chose words very carefully—it's "support" not "payment," "solidarity" not "responsibility," "humanitarian aid" not "compensation." The US fights any system that suggests legal responsibility for past emissions. They offer help but call it generosity, not obligation.
  5. Make other countries cut more emissions. The US and EU try to force China and India to make big commitments. The G77 says wealthy nations must lead with deeper cuts, pointing to historical emissions. If your competitor pays higher costs, your industries win. If someone else cuts deeply, you get the benefits without paying.
  6. Make other countries prove their actions. Everyone wants freedom for themselves and oversight for everyone else. Rich nations demand China and India submit to strict monitoring. The EU pushes for transparent counting. Small island states want systems forcing major polluters to keep strengthening promises. But transparency rules are praised in words, then weakened in practice as each party asks for exceptions.
  7. Keep control over own climate plans. Nations protect their independence. Every country wants to decide how to meet commitments: which industries, which technologies, which timeline. Promises become optional in the absence of legally required commitments. Countries resist common reporting rules and frequent checks. Freedom is the price of agreement, but life on Earth may not survive this price.
  8. Protect own industries from competition. The EU's Carbon Border Adjustment taxes imports from countries with weak climate policies. Developing nations see this as unfair trade barriers dressed in green. Oil producers fear that stopping fossil fuels will destroy their economies before they can change. Aviation and shipping have kept their emissions outside national targets for decades. Every delegation knows that climate action alone can mean lost jobs and losing elections if competitors don't have the same rules.

What the World Needs Now

Planet earth being watered and cared for amid a utopia-esque backdrop of green energy and growing crops

AI generated image by Sajid Siraj using Gemini

These eight goals show an uncomfortable truth: climate talks work like a tug-of-war where every team pulls their direction whilst the ground beneath everyone cracks open. To support wider understanding of these complex dynamics, I’ve created an interactive website — cop.sajidsiraj.com — to raise awareness about the climate tug-of-war unfolding at COP30.

Breaking the deadlock needs deals that address multiple goals at once - climate finance in exchange for stronger emission cuts; technology sharing in exchange for transparency; adaptation support for fossil fuel phase-out agreements.

  • We need to focus on practical actions over distant promises - less talk about 2050, more about what happens in 2026.
  • It is time to show that climate action creates opportunities - renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels; China leads solar production whilst others debate.
  • Also, there is a need to include voices beyond governments - cities, indigenous communities, and youth movements bring urgency without political games.

But ultimately, wealthy nations must deliver promised money, major polluters must cut deeply, fossil fuel producers must plan for decline, and all must accept that short-term wins are worthless if the planet becomes unliveable.

The Amazon outside COP30's halls doesn't negotiate. Coral reefs don't lobby. Children not yet born have no delegation. Species going extinct aren't represented. Yet they inherit whatever world these competing goals produce.

The Amazon will be watching.

Learn more about the University of Leeds at COP30 here

Stay up to date with Sajid

Stay up to date with the Priestley Centre