Those doing advocacy inside have their own approach and I get it. But the advantage of being a climate scientist and activist is that I get to join other voices to bring alternative readings of the situation. We already have enough diplomats at COPs. Let us critics retain our ability to be frank!

It's also disheartening, as a Brazilian, to see the issues we've always faced in national politics, where the more radical of us are reprehended for demanding more from our progressive governments, transfer onto the COP system. They expected us to praise everything just because it's Brazil.

They called it the COP of Truth but refused to embrace the battle against fossil fuels until last minute. When that obviously collapses, we're supposed to just be content with an autonomous initiative and not object to a final text that leaves the source of the crisis nameless?

Agribusiness responsible for criminal deforestation in Brazil got badges, a space in the Blue Zone, in partnership with a Brazilian govt agency. They even did a barbecue there.
Clearly, Von der Leyen is not the only one to believe you can talk about emissions without dealing with the sources.

I'm waiting for the presidency that will actually confront the UN's corporation observer badge system. It's easy to demand badges for social movements, Indigenous orgs and Youth. But how about we actually kick the polluting lobby out? Some will still make it in through Party badges, but fewer.

It's unfortunately not the first time some country delegates try to fight gender definitions in climate politics to be openly transphobic. And sometimes they don't want gender to be included at all. This time it made all the way to the final plenary (and it was booed accordingly)

Você sabe porque eu acho que as pessoas saem assim e nunca direi publicamente hahaha

Thanks, Gray! We're trying to tie in grassroots and democratic views of sovereignty to actually rework this international system that is driving us into collapse.

It's ok to celebrate, but as an opening to a tough battle. We won't get the accurate and just fossil fuel phase-out roadmap handed out to us, we'll need to fight for it. The conference in Colombia will be a key battleground! (And if Lula signs the treaty initiative there, it will be a good sign!)

We need to understand that this is the beginning of something and if we drop the ball, we'll end up with a weak roadmap proposal designed for soft consensus and making emergent oil producers happy. Science will once again be submitted to the agenda, when the agenda should submit to science.

It also means "net zero" can't be at the core of the roadmap. If it is, we'll let carbon markets seep in to let countries argue for bigger quotas of fossil fuel operations (that they'll just compensate later with shitty credits involving big ag and land grabs).

Any oil producing country can support a fossil fuel phase out roadmap. That's why a few things matter: moratorium on new fields, tight quotas adjusted to trade between developed and developing countries and their own transition pathways, and strict 2°C emissions budget thresholds.

We have an uphill battle: talks of a roadmap and the collapse of these talks exposed COP30 weaknesses, but it led Brazil to try to save the idea. It's good. We can use this at home to pressure the govt. But if we don't ensure it's a roadmap within carbon budget limits, the map will be a trap.

I'll believe it when I see my president do more than talk about it at random, force it onto the COP30 agenda without proper prep, and when that failed, push for an autonomous initiative. To prove he wasn't just saving face, we'll need to see it reflected in his domestic politics too.

But until we see him prove us right or wrong on it, we're the climate scientists at home being attacked by govt supporters when we call out his oil expansion plans, the addition of more fossil gas to the matrix and the auctioning off of oil fields to foreign corporations.
So yea. Skeptical. :(

Or the IEA recommedation for no further drilling and transitioning using only fields already in operation in the meantime.

What's said about "based on science" here often means "using scientic diagnostics" but not the scientific recommendations on climate policy.

Also, promoting the idea of a roadmap is not the same as developing and delivering the roadmap we truly need. It's entirely possible to support a weak and convenient roadmap that will let Brazil keep drilling since we're a developing country. I've yet to see this govt address carbon budgets.

Lula is notorious for talking big at climate events and disconnecting completely when it comes to resource extraction at home. His govt has promoted creative accounting about Brazil's historic emissions and the idea that we can keep drilling since we export most of it, so not our emissions anyway.