Success in Paris 2015 depended on the agreement of combatting climate change itself. Countries could set their own climate plans and there was enough political flexibility for almost everyone to claim a win. It worked because the purpose was clear. We needed a global signal that climate action was non-negotiable. Momentum mattered more than mechanisms.
Since then, the purpose has shifted. The question is no longer whether to act, but how: how fast and ambitious the strategies are, and how financial responsibility is shared between high emitters, rapidly industrialising economies and states already hit hardest by climate impacts. These are decisions with costs and consequences. That makes negotiating them slower, more fragile and more contested. It also helps explain why so many people feel increasing frustration with the annual COP cycle.
My research on fossil-fuel incumbents, the companies whose core business is oil and gas, found that real transformation only happens when the organisation has internal legitimacy for its green goals. People throughout the company must accept not just the need for change, but the purpose behind it that is connected to societal and environmental principles. If purpose stays rooted in purely economic incentives, progress stalls. The same principle applies to climate diplomacy. Nations come to COP balancing climate promises against the interests of sectors still tied to fossil-fuel value. The result is selective commitment: strong headlines, weaker follow through.
That is one reason climate finance promises remain unmet. It is why the transition from coal to renewables is uneven. It is why adaptation efforts fall behind the increasingly visible risks facing the most vulnerable countries. The gap is not a lack of knowledge or technology. It is a political and institutional system still closely tied to the pursuit of profit. The COP format was built to negotiate recognition of the problem. It has not yet evolved into a system capable of managing solutions in the interests of society and environment over economic principles.
So, is COP still fit for purpose? If the aim is to maintain diplomatic communication and keep climate on the agenda, it continues to deliver. But if the purpose is to ensure that countries actually meet the promises they make, then the system must change.
Brazil has the opportunity to demonstrate that change now. That means a stronger focus on delivery, not just declarations. It means empowering smaller groups of countries to broker the complex deals needed for finance and technology transfer. And it means putting purpose at the centre of climate governance, with institutions whose goals are aligned to real-world transformation rather than incremental adjustments to the status quo.
None of this replaces the value of a global forum where every nation has a voice. It strengthens it. The next phase of climate action demands a model that can support cooperation when costs are visible, not only when the threat is shared.
Paris was the high point of a system designed for consensus. COP30 must be the moment that system adapts to ensure consensus leads to action. The world does not need more declarations of intent. Brazil must help COP become a process built for delivery.
If it can do that, we may finally move from recognising the climate challenge to actually overcoming it.
Dr Hannah Schupfer is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Centre for Sustainable Business at King's Business School, King’s College London