Trump, International Tensions, Sparse Reporting: Five Threats to Environmental Advancement That Plagued Environmental Conference

The environmental summit in Belém wrapped up on Saturday night more than 24 hours beyond schedule, with an Amazonian rainstorm pouring on the venue. The United Nations structure managed to endure, as it persisted throughout the conference duration despite blazes, savage tropical heat and strong opposition on the global cooperation of planetary stewardship.

Dozens of agreements were ratified on the final day, as global representatives attempted to address the toughest problem that our species has ever faced. It was chaotic. Negotiations almost failed and had to be rescued by final-hour negotiations that continued overnight. Experienced commentators described the international pact as being on life-support.

Nevertheless, it persisted. In the short term. The agreement was not nearly enough to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees. Substantial deficiencies emerged in the funding required for adjustment measures by countries worst affected by climate disasters. Amazon conservation barely got a mention even though this was the first climate summit in the tropical zone. And the power balance in global politics remains so skewed towards gas, oil and coal interests that there was complete absence of discussion about "fossil fuels" in the central accord.

Yet, for all these flaws, Belém opened up new avenues of dialogue on how to minimize dependence on carbon energy, enhanced the involvement range by Indigenous groups and researchers, achieved progress towards more robust regulations on a just transition to renewable power, and crowbarred the wallets of developed countries to be a little more open. Controversy continues as to whether the environmental conference was a success, a failure or a compromise. But any judgment needs to consider the international challenges in which these negotiations occurred. These are key challenges that will have to be avoided at next year's climate summit in the next host nation.

Worldwide Governance Gap

America withdrew. China failed to step up. Many of the problems that plagued negotiations could have been averted if these two climate superpowers (the primary historical contributor and the world's biggest current emitter) were willing to cooperate on common strategies as they historically maintained before Donald Trump came to power. By contrast, Trump has attacked climate science, criticized international organizations and staged a summit in the American city with Arabian royalty. Little wonder, Saudi Arabia felt encouraged at the summit to prevent discussion of petroleum products, even though terminology regarding this was accepted at the Dubai summit. Beijing, by contrast, was participated in talks and geared towards helping its economic collaborator, the South American country, to host an effective summit. But its advisers made clear that China declined to fill US shoes when it came to finance, or act independently on any topic beyond production and distribution of clean technology.

2. Divided Brazil, Divided World

A primary split in global politics today is the dynamic between extraction and conservation interests. Pro-development forces push for expansion of agricultural frontiers, dig ever deeper for minerals and disregard the impact on forests and oceans. Preservation advocates contend these practices are violating ecological thresholds with increasingly severe impacts for environmental stability, ecosystems and human health. This split is visible internationally. The tension was observable at the climate summit, where the Brazilian hosts sometimes seemed to present inconsistent positions, according to observers from Asia, Europe and Latin America. While the environment secretary, Marina Silva, was the driving force in advocating for a plan away from carbon energy and forest loss, the nation's diplomatic corps – which has spent decades promoting commercial farming and energy exports – was far more hesitant and needed prompting by the national leader. The tropical ecosystem was effectively sacrificed to these tensions, getting only one brief and vague mention in the main negotiating text.

3. European Parsimony and the Rise of the Far Right

Continental powers has typically portrayed itself as progressive on environmental issues, but it was heavily criticised at the climate talks for delaying commitments of environmental funding to less affluent states. It too was woefully divided, partly due to growing extremism in many countries. Consequently, the European Union had to postpone its climate commitment (environmental strategy) and just resolved during the summit that it would make a fossil fuel transition roadmap one of its essential requirements. This was incompetent at best, because important matters needed more extensive prior consultation. No wonder, numerous developing nation delegates were suspicious that this rapid shift to the roadmap was a tactical move or discussion tool to defer implementation on resilience funding.

4. Global Conflicts Sapping Money and Attention

International military engagements dominated attention during talks, changing emphasis for national budgets and press attention. Continental leaders said their financial resources had prioritized defense spending in answer to increasing risks posed by the eastern nation. Therefore, they have slashed overseas development aid and it becomes an ever more difficult challenge to allocate funds for climate finance. In the past, that might have caused protest, given polls showing most citizens in the globe desire increased action to confront global warming. However, it's becoming difficult for citizens worldwide to know what is happening in sustainability discussions. None of the four major US networks dispatched correspondents to Belém. Journalists from European media were present, but several noted it was difficult to secure airtime for their stories. This feels defeatist and contrasts with the incredible positive energy on public spaces and aquatic routes of the conference location.

Outdated, Inefficient International Governance

The UN, which nears octogenarian status, is showing its age. Consensus decision-making at environmental summits means any country can veto almost any decision. This may have been logical when cold war politics were an international concern, but it is inadequate now civilization confronts a survival challenge to