From the “COP of Truth” to the Ashes of Inaction: When the Summit Subtracts More Than It Adds

Last week the lights went out in Brazil. The conference that President Lula da Silva ambitiously labeled the “COP of Truth” was expected to be the moment when diplomatic rhetoric finally touched the ground. However, once the smoke cleared—both the metaphorical smoke from speeches and the literal smoke from the fire that evacuated the venue—the industrial sector found itself facing a desolate landscape.

It is not just disappointment; it is the confirmation of a long-held suspicion: in the complex board of the transition, industry remains the invisible giant for climate negotiators.

The Unbearable Lightness of the Agreements

If anything has characterized this COP30, it has been the staging of a sense of urgency that failed to translate into mechanisms. Despite the symbolism of holding the summit in the heart of the Amazon, expectations were already low: according to Ipsos, before COP30, 49% of global public opinion believed it would be “merely symbolic,” without real changes, while only 34% trusted it would generate concrete results in the climate fight. The prevailing feeling: a meeting to complete the formalities, with more speeches than solutions.

For Foro Industria y Energía, the seriousness does not lie in the absence of grandiose agreements, but in the tactical uncertainty it generates. Industry does not operate with wishes; it operates with investments made ten, fifteen or twenty years ahead. Pretending there are clear decisions when in reality there are only vague statements is, in market terms, far more harmful than silence.

The COP created expectations of regulatory reference that, once unmet, automatically turn into paralysis. How can an industrial director approve a multimillion-euro CAPEX for decarbonization if the global framework is a house of cards?

A Long-Standing Disconnect

This sense of emptiness is not new, but it is cumulative. We already warned of this trend after the summit in Baku. At the time, for COP29 we wrote: “COP29 leaves a sense of emptiness. As we lamented after the conclusions of COP28, the lack of a specific roadmap for industry reflects a worrying disconnect.”

A year later, the disconnect has turned into an abyss. The summit has oscillated between unreachable idealism and paralyzing bureaucracy, forgetting the financial and technical engineering required for real transition.

Bilateral Patches as Evidence of Failure

Spain has joined the Belém Declaration on Global Green Industrialization, an initiative bringing together 35 countries and organizations committed to decarbonizing heavy industry. On the surface, it is good news. In reality, it confirms that the universal multilateral mechanism is not working as it should.

When countries need to create parallel “clubs” of those willing to move forward, it is because the main mechanism is failing. The Belém Declaration is, in this sense, a bilateral patch that evidences the COP process’s inability to create coherent, binding global frameworks.

These declarations are well-intentioned: mobilizing financing, sharing technology, promoting cooperation. But they operate outside the COP, not thanks to it. They are an implicit acknowledgment that waiting for universal consensus in Belém, Baku or anywhere else is insufficient for the speed required by the transition. The countries truly determined to advance have decided to go ahead on their own.

The Dangerous Illusion of Neutrality

When assessing the impact of an event, we can think in three levels: positive, neutral or negative. It might be assumed that a summit without major agreements is neutral. Wrong. This COP has been clearly negative because it creates noise by generating false expectations in energy markets, delegitimizes the multilateral process by eroding institutional trust, and—most dangerously—justifies inaction, becoming the perfect excuse for those who reject the transition: “If world leaders can’t agree, why should my company risk its profitability?”

The summit, which should act as a catalyst, is acting as a brake. If climate diplomacy becomes an obstacle to business decisions, perhaps it is better not to meet until there is something tangible to sign.

Between Smoke and Certainties: Industry Confirms It Stands Alone

The fire that evacuated the COP venue on its second-to-last day—unprecedented in the history of these summits—proved to be a perfect metaphor. While the structures burned, delegates still failed to agree on the fundamentals. Lula wanted a “COP of Truth,” and paradoxically, that is what we got. The truth is that industrial energy management cannot wait for the stars to align in a conference hall.

Industry is one of the most involved actors in the energy transition, with industrial energy management being the keystone of its competitiveness throughout the process. Yet once again, international agreements ignore it. This exclusion generates deep confusion and disorientation at a time when companies need defined coordinates to move forward and invest.

The energy transition is happening in factories, industrial parks and boardrooms—often despite the summits, not thanks to them.

A Lost Framework and a Dose of Realism

The Conference of the Parties, conceived with good intentions at the outset, has become a reference event generating immense expectations for the industrial sector. But this COP30 will be remembered for having delivered a total and absolute dose of realism.

The realism forced upon us by COP30 should be the first step toward demanding coherence and courage in energy management, both in international texts and national policies.

We leave Belém with a bitter aftertaste and a lesson in forced pragmatism. Industry must continue seeking its own path toward competitiveness and sustainability, accepting that, for now, international coordinates will remain blurry.

The COP may not have ignited the spark of change, but it does remind us—without anesthesia—that time wasted in sterile negotiations is time stolen from the transition, from competitiveness, and from millions of lives depending on real decisions. The fire of climate urgency is still burning, but unfortunately, the firefighters continue debating which hose to use, and the COP has acted more like spectators than fire-extinguishers.