The Commercial War imposed by the United States of Donald Trump, the military wars of recent years and the strengthening of the right in European elections press the ambition of countries to COP30, the UN Climate Conference (United Nations), the meeting of the meeting, André Corrêa do Lago.

“Negotiations evolve a lot in accordance with international circumstances, and I need not say that we live in particularly complex international circumstances,” he says to Sheet.

All UN’s last environmental conferences have waged at the same point: the resistance of the countries rich in meeting developing developments for more money to finance climate solutions.

In the latest edition of the climate meeting, in Azerbaijan, the negotiation of this item was formally ended with the approval of a new goal, called NCQG, but which was considered frustrating ($ 300 billion, or $ 1.6 tri).

So frustrating that some countries have tried to bring the negotiation back to the table at the Bonn Pre-Cop Conference in Germany in June, and only the possibility of including it again has already crashed the negotiations.

COP30 takes place in Belém in November. Brazil and Azerbaijan will have to present the so -called “Roadmap”, a script for how the world will be able to improve this goal and reach $ 1.3 trillion ($ 7.2 tri) in climate financing.

But not to mention the engagement of the largest economy in the world, the US, who didn’t even send a delegation to Bonn. Trump has already announced that the country will cease to be a signatory to the Paris Agreement (Treaty on Global Warming Goals) in 2026.

Some negotiators evaluate that the country’s absence makes room for smaller nations to occupy this space.

“It gains space, but with the absence of a very important actor. It is a debatable victory,” disagrees Lago.

THE Sheethe takes stock of Bonn’s pre-Cop negotiations, projects Belém and Critica Trump for using ethanol and illegal deforestation as reasons to justify commercial investigation against Brazil.

“President Trump needs to receive more correct information about Brazil.”

Why was Brazil in Bonn against rediscussing the allocation of resources from the rich countries to the poor, as some nations ordered?
It is not that Brazil did not consider priority. Brazil had asked all delegates not to open new trading schedule items, because sometimes you can paralyze negotiations by placing new items. One group placed the climate financing item and, in fact, paralyzed the negotiation for two days.

It’s an effective way to draw attention to a theme, so much so that you are asking me about it. But it makes negotiation more difficult and slower. Especially when it is a particularly controversial item and you know it won’t move, just stop.

Can this be repeated in Belém?
The item could eventually be raised at the beginning of COP de Belém. So Brazil asked no one to do this (in Bonn) to advance on the agenda already agreed.

However, you have to understand why countries did this: it was the institutional way to express their frustration with the financial result of COP29. In Baku, that strange acronym was approved, NCQG, the new financial goal, which made many frustrated.

But is there fear that financing locks the negotiations in Belém?
There is always this possibility.

China is one of the countries that have not yet presented its new NDC (National Decrobonization Goal of each country). Is it a lack of commitment?
There was an expectation that all countries would present their NDC until February. Given that less than 20 presented before February, the normal became not presented. So China is even together with the European Union, which has not presented so far and should present in September, such as China.

Do you believe that?
China told us that it is advanced in this preparation. I believe they will publish their NDC in September. This is what we have heard.

What has changed in the negotiations in the absence of the United States delegation in Bonn?
There were several interpretations, some countries even thought that without the United States some subjects have advanced more positively. But I think it is an interpretation that, unfortunately, does not reflect reality, because the reality is that the absence of such an important actor as the United States cannot be good for climate negotiation.

After all, they are the biggest historical broadcasters, they are second in the year 2025 and therefore it is very important to have such a relevant actor in the discussion. We have to remember that Paris’s agreement was designed for the US, because they had not entered the Kyoto protocol (the previous agreement). So it’s doubly frustrating.

Didn’t the US state participation supply this absence?
States do not negotiate the agreements. They will have an important participation, there are 37 US states that want to follow what is decided in the Paris Agreement, and this group represents around 70% of US GDP. It is a larger economy than China. But without the power to negotiate and approve documents.

And how did China react to this scenario?
I do not think it happened voluntarily, but the absence of the US had consequences in the negotiation. Developed countries have lost support from an important portion of their group, because their strength comes mainly from Europe and the US. This absence made the way to negotiate from Europe a little different, she had to adapt.

Do developing countries gain strength without the US?
Some interpret yes, but then I get back to the argument: you gain space, but with the absence of a very important actor. It is a debatable victory.

As a climate negotiator for many years and as a person who believes this negotiation has to lead to effective combat of climate change, I would obviously prefer the United States to be negotiating there.

Was there an attempt to retreat from the “Transitioning Away” agreement – the COPS terminology to say that the world should reduce the use of fossil fuels?
It is important to remember the following: the “Transitioning Away”, that is, the famous phrase to move away from fossils, has already been approved by consensus in Dubai (at COP28, in 2023). What happens is that there are countries that would like the subject to come back in more detail.

Is detailing a way to weaken?
Some countries want to weaken the decision, and some countries want to accentuate. Given this, there was no evolution. The decision has already been made.

There were huge discussions between countries in Bonn. Is it worrying for Belém?
I have a tendency to be optimistic, so I see the half -full glass. That is, there was an engagement of the delegations, despite the divergences, some quite vocal, as you say. There were several advances in the texts we need to approve in Belém.

The fact that Bonn has gone well does not mean that Belém will necessarily be well. Negotiations evolve greatly in accordance with international circumstances, and I need not say that we live in particular international circumstances.

Is a COP better without the United States or with a delegation that hinders negotiations?
I don’t see much why an American delegation is active in Bethlehem if a month and a half later they will formally be out of the Paris Agreement. It makes no sense to send a delegation to be active in an agreement from which you have already announced your departure.

The United States must send a delegation, which will follow the negotiations of the Climate Convention (another group), of which they are still part.

Brazil and Azerbaijan need to negotiate, in Belém, the “Roadmap”…
Negotiate, no. To present.

Present the script for the world to mobilize R $ 7.2 trillion in climate financing. Can trade war reduce the ambition of this document?
It is a realistic analysis, including because developed countries are losing one of the largest economies, which would be one of the countries where the most public resources could come from. This makes the financing discussion more complex, no doubt.

But I remember that, in principle, from a formal point of view, the financing discussion ended in Baku. “Roadmap” is a map of the signed path, by (Mukhtar) Babayev, president of COP29, and by me, president of COP30. It will not be negotiated and need not be supported or approved.

But it needs to be applicable, effective…
It needs to be influential. It can be well appreciated or poorly received, it can happen.

Mr. Already feel any effect of the tariff war on climate negotiations?
From the tariff war less than, for example, the increase in military spending, although they are somehow things, and other pressures about developed countries.

What pressures?
Elections. There is a trend, it is not an absolute rule that the right likes the climate schedule less. Electoral pressure in Europe’s democratic countries is having an influence on the ambition of developed countries.

So are there a trio of factors that press the ambition of countries in COP: Trump tariffs, wars and elections?
Yes, probably.

And the tariff?
The tariff causes a concern about the cost of production of the products. And many people attribute a high cost of energy (which affects the cost of production) to the high proportion of renewable energy, absolutely superficially.

For example, when energy fell in Portugal and Spain. There is an association, a series of half-truths to try to moderate climate speech.

I joke that we went from scientific negationism to economic negationism, that is, (the assumption of) that is not worth the investment to combat climate change.

Trump opened an investigation into Brazil and justified speaking of ethanol rates and illegal deforestation. What is the position of mr. About this?
He would respond close to what the president (Lula) said that President Trump needs to receive more correct information about Brazil.

Is there a chance of COP’s head of Cop’s heads from Belém?
The head of heads is planned for Belém, and the President of the Republic wants it in Belém.

X-ray | André Corrêa do Lago, 65

Rio de Janeiro, 1959. He entered Itamaraty in 1982. He was director of energy, climate, chief negotiator of Rio+ 20, Secretary of Climate, Energy and Environment, and head of the Brazilian delegations in the last two COPs. He was also ambassador in Japan, India and Butão. Economist of Training, is part of the jury of the Pritzker Architecture Award.