 
|
Signature Sponsor
November 19, 2025 - The dilemma over how quickly the world can phase out fossil fuels did not begin at COP30—nor will it end on the 21st, when the UN Climate Change Conference is scheduled to conclude in Belém. But the issue permeates the entire event, from the full sessions where leaders speak to the corridors where hundreds of countries, companies, and civil society organizations showcase their agendas and positions.
While at the National Confederation of Industry (CNI) pavilion, the entity’s president, Ricardo Alban, advocated for a very gradual transition from fossil fuels to clean energy—and calmly expressed support for exploring new oil fields at the mouth of the Amazon—a poster hanging in the Civil Society Climate Hub tent, barely ten steps from his podium, read: “Fossil fuel is not transition. It is backwardness.”
These sharply divergent views, coexisting in the same corridor, illustrate what the Brazilian presidency of COP30, led by Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, sought to foster ahead of the event. In his seventh letter to the international community, published at the end of August, he wrote that “critical dialogues must take place not only where it is easy, but above all where it matters most.”
For Dan Ioschpe, an industry executive who serves as the liaison between the private sector and the COP30 presidency in his role as High-Level Climate Champion for the UN conference, there is no expectation that this debate will be resolved anytime soon—nor is that the goal. “This is an ongoing dialogue. Conclusions on issues of this magnitude are not necessarily the way forward. The roadmap is the most important thing. The key is knowing how to move in the right direction,” he says.
In Mr. Ioschpe’s view, that direction involves substantial expansion in the use of clean energy sources. “Renewables are taking a more significant share of the global energy supply and, at some point, should even surpass fossil fuels, moving toward the transition,” he says. “But each country has its own dynamics, each with its own preferences and desires,” he adds. “The positive aspect is that new technologies will help accelerate this process.”
Mr. Ioschpe—who sits on the boards of major industrial companies, including his own Iochpe-Maxion, as well as Embraer, Marcopolo, and WEG—aligns with climate scientists in calling for the accelerated growth of renewable energy at competitive costs. But his stance is more closely aligned with the business sector, as he does not directly oppose opening new oil fields.
For Mr. Alban, the energy transition must be gradual to be effective. “Of course, we need to live in harmony with the environment, but the priority is people. And people need an improved quality of life. Technology and innovation are essential for making that possible.”
He goes further. Commenting on the possibility of Petrobras eventually extracting oil from the mouth of the Amazon, he argues that “we have no right” to refrain from using a natural resource that, in his view, could benefit the Amazon region’s population.
“The narratives are there. Theories and economic data exist on both sides of the debate when we talk about transition. So it’s better to find common ground than for each side to stick to its own narrative. Let’s try to find a pragmatic solution. In the case of the Equatorial Margin, let’s think about how much development it could bring to a region that still has limited opportunities.”
The CNI’s defense of exploring new oil fields in the Amazon estuary does not yet reflect the majority public opinion, but support is growing. According to a Quaest survey conducted November 6-9, 49% of respondents opposed oil exploration in the Equatorial Margin, 42% supported it, and 9% were undecided or declined to answer. A month earlier, only 26% were in favor and 70% were opposed.
“We cannot simply give up the use of hydrocarbons. There’s no point in creating falsehoods or illusions,” says Mr. Alban.
This same week, as COP30 began in Belém, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its annual report showing that, under current policies, global oil demand is projected to reach 113 million barrels per day by mid-century—an increase of 13% over 2024 consumption.
Science sees a disastrous scenario
For climate scientists, that trajectory is alarming. “Science is showing very clearly that, under current conditions, we are extremely close to reaching 1.5°C of warming. Studies indicate that this could happen in no more than ten years,” says Carlos Nobre, one of the world’s most respected climate researchers. The 1.5°C threshold is measured relative to pre-industrial levels.
At COP30, Mr. Nobre co-chairs the Planetary Science pavilion in the Blue Zone—steps away from where official delegates circulate, and only a short distance from the CNI space.
According to him, science operates on facts—not narratives—and from a scientific standpoint, it makes no sense to begin exploring new oil fields, in Brazil or anywhere else, even if the stated intention is to finance climate-adaptation measures.
“We are in a severe climate crisis. We need to rapidly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, since 75% of greenhouse gas emissions come from them. There is no justification for opening any new coal, oil, or natural gas wells anywhere in the world, especially because the cost of wind and solar energy is already about one-third lower than fossil-fuel energy,” he says.
Regarding the Amazon estuary, Mr. Nobre argues that the $3 billion Petrobras intends to invest in developing a new exploration field could instead accelerate the expansion of renewable-energy technologies.
From the perspective of climate scientists, the notion of using oil revenues from the Equatorial Margin to finance climate-adaptation efforts and social programs in the Amazon is inherently contradictory—particularly because the region is already suffering the effects of global warming, and continued emissions will only deepen the damage.
Global water stress
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a world locked into permanent warming of 1.5°C—which would, in itself, represent a failure of the Paris Agreement and the COP process—would leave nearly 1 billion people facing water stress and advancing desertification, with estimated adaptation and residual-damage costs of $63 billion for major crops.
In such a scenario, about 24% more people would be exposed to flooding compared to historical levels, coral reefs would decline by 70% to 90%, and malaria cases would rise.
“I can’t tell you exactly what needs to be done to accelerate the energy transition at the ideal pace—I’m a meteorologist, not an engineer. But I can tell you that reducing reliance on fossil fuels is essential to human well-being. That is a fact. That is science, not narrative,” says Julia Cohen, climate scientist and professor at the Federal University of Pará.
She is skeptical that COP30 negotiators will be able to craft a solution that satisfies the private sector—particularly industry—while also appeasing scientists who warn against opening new areas for fossil-fuel exploration.
“The COP president is an excellent negotiator, but I don’t know what cards he has up his sleeve. Personally, I’m a bit pessimistic about the idea that there is a solution capable of pleasing both sides,” Ms. Cohen adds.
Victoria Santos, Energy and Industry Manager at the Climate and Society Institute (iCS), is more optimistic and sees emerging areas of convergence between the two camps, even if they appear to be at odds in the corridors of COP30.
“From my perspective, both sides are essentially speaking the same language,” she says. “But the energy transition does need to move faster. We all agree that it is necessary and that we are headed in the right direction.”
According to Ms. Santos, the private sector, broadly speaking, is prepared to engage in the energy transition agenda but requires financial instruments and public policies that further encourage it down this path.
Still, she agrees with scientists that opening new fossil-fuel exploration fields must be avoided as much as possible. “Scientific studies show that we no longer have room for new fossil-fuel exploration—no oil, no coal, no gas. If we understand that we must control the rise in global temperatures, there is simply no way forward that includes opening new frontiers for this type of production.”
|
|