Thirty years. Sounds like a long time, doesn’t it? Three decades of climate summits, of planes landing in exotic cities, of delegates in suits, of handshakes for the cameras, and of many, many documents. From that first meeting in Berlin in 1995 to the one coming up in the Brazilian Amazon, we’ve been stuck in an almost infinite loop of negotiating the planet’s future. And one wonders, what has all this circus been good for?

The history of the Conferences of the Parties, the famous COPs, is not a straight line toward success. Not by a long shot. It’s more like the electrocardiogram of a patient with arrhythmia: peaks of euphoria followed by valleys of deep disappointment. It’s a soap opera with too many seasons, where the protagonists change, but the underlying plot—the race against the clock to avoid getting scorched—remains the same. And, honestly, sometimes it seems like the writers have no idea how to end it.

To understand this mess, we need to rewind. I won’t bore you with a complex methodology. This is simpler: we’ve dived into the official UN archives and soaked up what the real experts say, the academics and analysts who have been in this trench for years. The idea is to tell the story as it is, with its lights and its many shadows.

Here’s an attempt to summarize this odyssey in a table, to give us an idea of the journey:

The Prehistory: Kyoto, a Giant with Feet of Clay

At the beginning, everything was… hope? In the 90s, with the hangover from the Rio Earth Summit, people really believed we could fix this. COP1 in Berlin was the starting gun. But it was at COP3 in Kyoto where it seemed like we were getting serious. A protocol! With legal obligations! It was one of those moments that make it into the history books. The problem, and what a problem, is that it was born lame. The United States, the big boss of emissions back then, signed it but never ratified it.

What came next was a case of wanting to but not being able to. A collapse in The Hague (COP6), an agonizing rescue in Bonn (COP6-bis), and years of technical negotiations to get a treaty that already felt old off the ground. When it finally came into force in 2005, the world was already different. China was taking off and its emissions were skyrocketing, but since it was a “developing” country, Kyoto didn’t hold it accountable. A monumental design flaw.

The final nail in the coffin of that era was Copenhagen in 2009. It was sold as the summit that would save the world. And it was a monumental letdown. A bare-minimum agreement, without legal binding, that left a bitter taste and a distrust that would take years to heal.

The Renaissance: Paris and the Utopia of 1.5°C

After the trauma of Copenhagen, something had to change. And it did. Instead of imposing targets from above, they opted for a “country club” model: everyone brings what they can (or what they want). The idea was conceived in Durban (COP17) and, after years of diplomatic cooking, culminated in the miracle of COP21 in Paris.

Paris was, it must be admitted, a magical moment. For the first time, 196 countries agreed on something. The goal was ambitious: to keep warming “well below 2°C” and try to keep it from exceeding 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement was a brutal diplomatic success, a work of art in negotiation. Its problem is that it’s based on good faith. It’s like a diet where everyone decides how many calories to cut, weighs themselves, and promises to do better next time. It works… if everyone complies.

The following years have been an attempt to put muscle on that skeleton. In Katowice (COP24), the cumbersome “rulebook” was approved. In Glasgow (COP26), they finally dared to whisper the devil’s name: fossil fuels. And in Sharm el-Sheikh (COP27), a giant step was taken in climate justice with the “Loss and Damage” fund, a way of saying that those who have polluted the most have to start paying for the broken dishes.

Then came Dubai (COP28), the summit of contradiction, where they called for abandoning fossil fuels while partying at the house of the biggest seller. A joke that tells itself.

So, Have We Made Any Progress?

Yes and no. It’s frustrating, I know. We’ve created an impressive institutional scaffolding. We have agreements, rules, funds, committees… But what about the results? Well, that’s where things get shaky, and badly so.

The good (so as not to be total doomsayers):

• The Paris Agreement exists. And it’s universal. That’s a monumental achievement.
• “Loss and Damage” is being discussed. Ten years ago, it was a taboo topic. Today it’s a pillar of negotiation.
• Carbon markets have rules. After an eternity, it seems there’s a manual so that countries can “trade” their emission reductions without cheating (too much).

The bad (the harsh reality):

• Emissions aren’t going down. In fact, since we started this whole circus, they’ve doubled. Despite 30 years of summits, we’re still stepping on the accelerator toward the cliff.
• 1.5°C is almost a pipe dream. With the current plans on the table, we’re heading toward nearly 3°C of warming. A very, very different and much more hostile world.
• The money isn’t arriving. The famous promise of $100 billion annually for poor countries was fulfilled late and poorly. And the new target of $300 billion, frankly, falls short.

What Now? Belém, the Jungle, and the Last Call

COP30 in Belém, in the heart of the Amazon, is not just another summit. It is, or should be, a turning point. It’s the moment when countries have to present their new emission reduction plans for 2035. It’s the moment of truth, to see if Paris was serious or just a nice declaration of intentions.

The history of the COPs is one of incremental progress in the face of an existential crisis that demands radical transformation. The institutions, legal frameworks, and scientific and political consensus on the need to act have been built. Milestones like the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and the Loss and Damage Fund are notable diplomatic achievements. However, the overall balance is sobering: collective action has not matched the science. Emissions continue at record levels, and the window to limit warming to 1.5°C is rapidly closing. The ultimate success or failure of the UNFCCC process will not be measured by the agreements signed, but by the curve of global emissions. The decisions made at COP30 and in the years to come will be decisive for the future of the climate and of humanity.

Alejandro de Roca  |  Markets and Operations Director