COP30 in Belém: The Climate Crisis Between Data and Reality

The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém, the capital of Brazil's Pará state and a key Amazonian city, is much more than an environmental summit. It is a collision point—not of one, but three crises converging at once.

First, a political collision: The ideal of multilateral cooperation, where nations decide for the common good, clashes head-on with the realpolitik of a fragmented world. The climate agenda is competing with the objectives of power blocs like BRICS, which see the summit as a stage to reshape global influence.

Second, a collision with reality: Both the idealistic and the power-driven agendas are crashing against the non-negotiable truth of science. Its findings, distilled in the first Global Stocktake, demand far more radical action than any political actor seems willing to offer.

Finally, a social collision on the ground: All of this is happening in Belém, a city that embodies the paradox of the climate crisis—an epicenter of biodiversity and, simultaneously, of profound social inequality.

To unravel these collisions, the following analysis merges two complementary perspectives. On one hand, figures from the global digital conversation that measure the geopolitical pulse and public frustration; on the other, the root causes that on-the-ground journalism reveals. By analyzing these two sides of the same coin, we offer a complete anatomy of a summit where tensions are set to manifest with unprecedented intensity.

Belém, Brasil, foto by DW Español.

The Geopolitical Pulse: What the Numbers Say and Why Brazil is at the Center

Our analysis of thousands of mentions in the global digital conversation is revealing: the climate agenda is being eclipsed by power. We came to this conclusion by combining a quantitative approach—monitoring thousands of global mentions of COP30 from July 4 to 17 with Meltwater—with a qualitative one, analyzing coverage from key media outlets to understand the "why" behind the trends.

The first sign of this power struggle is found in the data.

The Figures: Global Trends and the Power of #BRICS at COP30

The hashtag #brics2025 (786 mentions) surpasses #COP30 (741 mentions) in popularity. The most relevant figures are not activists, scientists, or environmental ministers, but presidents: Lula (1362 mentions), Donald Trump (923), Xi Jinping (731), and Vladimir Putin (713). The most mentioned organization is BRICS (1472 mentions), ahead of the United Nations (1350).

The Root Cause: Lula's Dual Agenda on Climate Change

The data pointing to Lula as the central figure is not abstract; it reflects the host country's strategic duality. Lula da Silva's government seeks to position Brazil as a global climate leader while simultaneously boosting its role within BRICS, a bloc with its own economic and political agenda. This ambiguity manifests in a nuanced environmental policy, where conservation efforts clash with pressure from developmentalist sectors. The global conversation, therefore, is quantifying Brazil's and its leader's strategic crossroads.

The Power Platform: BRICS as a Geopolitical Vehicle

The prominence of BRICS over the United Nations is a direct consequence of this strategy. The bloc has solidified itself as the Global South's main negotiating platform to articulate the summit's most contentious demand: defining a new and ambitious climate finance goal. Brazil's leading role is the catalyst that merges the COP30 agenda with the narrative of a more equitable world order driven by BRICS. The figures thus show that the summit is perceived less as a technical UN forum and more as a key stage in the battle for global economic reconfiguration.

Internal Complexity: An Alliance of Contradictory Interests

Finally, it is crucial to understand that the BRICS bloc generates such intense debate because it is, in itself, a paradox.

Within the same bloc coexist China (the largest investor in renewables and the largest emitter), India (with enormous development needs), Russia (a fossil fuel powerhouse), South Africa (undergoing a complex coal transition), the new Gulf oil powers, and, centrally, Brazil.

The host nation presents itself as the guardian of the Amazon, yet it is simultaneously an agricultural superpower whose expansion threatens ecosystems and an oil power considering opening new crude oil extraction frontiers.

This duality in Brazil is not isolated; it embodies the fundamental crossroads of all of Latin America: a region that holds the biodiversity and mineral resources vital for the climate solution, yet whose economies often depend on the very extractivist models that put it at risk.

The Consequences: This mix of interests makes their position enormously consequential. They are not a "green" bloc. They are a power bloc with the industrial capacity to lead the transition and, at the same time, a vested interest in fossil fuels. This internal tension makes them the center of global attention.

The Narrative of Failure: Quantifying Global Frustration

The sentiment pervading the debate is overwhelmingly negative—a skepticism that data can precisely measure.

The Figures: Digital Skepticism Resonates in the Global Climate Debate

The word "failure" (1042 mentions) is a central term. Keywords like "richest countries" (1037 negative mentions) are strongly associated with disappointment. The term "action," though desired, is overwhelmingly linked to negative sentiment (1033 mentions), suggesting that current measures are seen as insufficient.

The Cause: Climate Finance, the Bonn Summit, and the Gap Between Developed and Developing Nations

This digital frustration is not a spontaneous reaction but the result of a history of gaps between promises and outcomes. The causes are deep and can be summarized in three key factors:

The Unfulfilled Financing Promise: The main catalyst for distrust, and the reason "richest countries" generate such negative sentiment, is the historic failure to meet the promise of mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020. Although the goal was officially met years late, the delay and the perception that the figure is now insufficient have created a powerful narrative of a broken promise that dominates the Global South's discourse and fuels skepticism.

The Emissions Credibility Gap: There is a vast, well-documented difference between countries' climate commitments (their NDCs) and the emissions reductions that science demands to meet the Paris Agreement. The first Global Stocktake, concluded at COP28, was an official admission of this collective "failure." This explains why the term "action" provokes a negative reaction: the public perception is that actions are performative or inadequate, not the systemic transformations required.

Paralysis in Recent Negotiations: This historical sentiment is constantly reinforced by current failures. The lack of significant progress at the Bonn Conference in June 2025, especially in negotiations for the new and crucial financing goal (the NCQG), confirms that the same divisions that have paralyzed progress in the past remain in effect. This was not only a disappointment in itself but also revived memories of previous undesirable outcomes, eroding confidence ahead of COP30 in Belém.

The Battlefield: Where Data Collides with Amazonian Reality

The promises of climate diplomacy are about to land in Belém, the heart of the Amazon, where they will face their toughest test: reality. It is at this epicenter of paradoxes that global discourse collides with local contradictions. To understand this conflict, we must first analyze the themes that define the conversation.

Our breakdown of the data allows us to group thousands of mentions into three major arenas of debate. "Law and Government" refers to climate governance: public policies, legislation, and the role of institutions. "People and Society" is the most human-centric topic, focusing on climate justice, activism, and the crisis's impact on communities. Finally, the "Science" category groups conversations based on the disciplines that analyze the state of the planet and issue increasingly urgent warnings.

With this context, the figures reveal a digital ecosystem dominated by pessimism.

The Figures: An Ecosystem of Negativity in Policy and Society

The thematic analysis reveals an abyssal gap. While the "Science" category (2449 mentions) shows a positive sentiment trend, indicating it is seen as a source of hope and solutions, the "Law and Government" (6071 mentions) and "People and Society" (5769 mentions) categories are mired in negativity.

The "abyssal gap," therefore, is the stark contrast between a public that trusts the scientific diagnosis and its profound frustration with the political response and social impact. It is the fracture between knowing what to do and the perception that the system is incapable of executing it fairly and effectively.

The Causes: Energy Controversies in the Amazon—BR-319 and Oil Exploration at the Epicenter of the Crisis

This quantified frustration is not abstract; it has concrete causes that can be observed at the very epicenter of the summit.

• The Reality of "People and Society": The negativity in this category materializes in Belém itself. Despite millions invested for the event, the city is a microcosm of inequality, with over half its population living in favelas and having one of Brazil's worst basic sanitation ratings. The gap between the global diplomatic agenda and the local struggle for social justice is palpable and a constant source of tension.

• The Paralysis of "Law and Government": Distrust in governments' capacity is fueled by projects that defy climate logic. The potential repaving of the BR-319 highway, which environmentalists warn could accelerate deforestation to a point of no return, and OPEC's backing of oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River are direct causes of the perception that economic and political interests continue to prevail over scientific evidence.

Conclusion: A Decisive Summit at the Epicenter of the Crisis

COP30 will not be just another conference. The data and the news tell us the same story from different angles: we are facing a summit that will unfold at the epicenter of the climate, geopolitical, and social crises. Voices of warning, from photographer Sebastião Salgado to Pope Francis's encyclical Laudato Si', remind us of what is at stake.

The success or failure of Belém will not be measured in speeches, but in the ability of the international community, with Brazil at the helm, to close the gap between the figures of distrust and the causes of devastation. The crossroads is clear: yield to the economic pressures and political paralysis that the data reflects, or assume bold leadership that rises to the historic challenge we face.