【By Tiago Nogueira, Observer Net Columnist】
The 30th UN Climate Conference (COP30) currently taking place in Belém, the heart of the Amazon, is being held at a critical moment for the credibility of the international climate governance system. At the beginning of the conference, people had to face an embarrassing fact: the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 remains at the level of commitments and is far from concrete implementation. The gap between commitments and execution remains significant, especially for developed countries that have contributed the most to global warming, which still waver between support and withdrawal under domestic political interests.
On the eve of the COP30 opening, the leaders' summit saw all countries agree to prioritize "accelerating the energy transition, expanding climate financing, and protecting tropical rainforests." However, any serious assessment of these goals must be understood within the context of structural inequality — the countries required to drive the transition do not have the same conditions.
COP30 has revealed deep-seated structural tensions in the climate agenda: developed countries insist on strict environmental targets without providing sufficient funding, technology, or industrial support, making it impossible for developing countries to meet them without sacrificing their own modernization process. At the same time, they maintain high-carbon consumption patterns and energy structures.
Photo of world leaders attending the 30th UN Climate Conference, courtesy of COP30 organizers
Developing countries, which are still striving to provide basic public services — whether clean water, transportation, electricity, or digital connectivity — are asked to "protect" their important ecological assets without receiving guarantees to convert these resources into development. Worse still, developed countries often change their climate policy stances with election cycles, undermining trust and making it difficult for countries in the Global South to make mid-term plans.
Sarcasm is that the governments that demand strict environmental protection from developing countries are often the funders of environmental NGOs — these NGOs exert pressure locally to block infrastructure projects, but rarely consider the social costs involved.
This instability is further exacerbated by two interacting forces. On one hand, right-wing extremists in the United States and Europe spread the denialist view that "the climate crisis does not exist," undermining multilateral cooperation needed to address the crisis. On the other hand, the rise of "selective environmentalism" connected to large corporate lobbying groups, which verbally raise the banner of ecology but avoid the necessary balance between protection and development. This approach is still influenced by the "zero growth" theory — for decades, it has limited the industrial expansion of developing countries under the guise of ecology while exempting northern countries from historical and current responsibilities. Regardless of which side, the result is the same: reinforcing the unequal structure of the global system.
Environmental issues have become a new disguise for trade wars, which is increasingly common. Under the name of "environmental protection," restrictions are imposed on agricultural, energy, and industrial products from tropical countries, while the high-carbon supply chains of northern countries continue to operate normally. Latin America has become the testing ground for this double standard practice. The recent debate over oil and gas exploration in the "Equatorial Edge" sea area is an example: European and American governments criticize Brazil's technical evaluation of oil reserves, but remain silent about the Western companies profiting from Guyana's offshore oil fields. This selective discourse is obvious, changing with political and economic interests.
Such situations have occurred frequently in the past few decades. In the early 2010s, the Morales government of Bolivia planned to build a road crossing the TIPNIS (Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park), covering 1.1 million hectares. The project aimed to connect long-isolated and underdeveloped areas, but was strongly opposed by international NGOs, transnational media, and Western diplomatic representatives, who claimed it "threatened nature and indigenous communities." At the time, Vice President García Linera pointed out that many organizers of the opposition movements were not local residents, but outsiders supported by the environmental NGO system — many of whom received funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Former Ecuadorian President Correa proposed an initiative to exchange international funds for not exploiting oil in Yasuni National Park. Although some symbolic commitments were obtained, the amount was far from sufficient to compensate for the losses. Once "protection" requires real wealth transfer, the "moral enthusiasm" of developed countries quickly cools down — no rich country is willing to make a substantial contribution. The signal is clear: only when developing countries bear the full cost will environmental protection be praised.
To seriously discuss climate issues, we must have historical memory. The industrial revolutions of Europe and North America — the starting point of modern capitalism — were completed at the cost of intensive fossil fuel consumption. These countries' accumulated carbon emissions are the historical root of global warming. Asking developing countries that are still building their industrial foundations to give up their strategic resources is essentially freezing the current global inequality. Without technology transfer, stable financing, and the power to autonomously determine development priorities, so-called "green transitions" are nothing more than a new form of "green neocolonialism."
China's contemporary experience has broken the false proposition that "development and environmental protection are opposing." Over the past four decades, China has lifted more than 750 million people out of poverty, while becoming a global leader in photovoltaic, wind power, electric vehicles, batteries, and low-carbon industrial systems. China's energy transition is not about suppressing growth, but reorganizing the production system around strategic science and technology. This is crucial: climate issues are no longer just environmental problems, but struggles for the dominance of industrial development. This is why the European and American governments have continuously imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle exports and launched public opinion campaigns — even in Brazil, BYD's plan to build the largest electric vehicle factory in Latin America in Camaragibe faces media resistance that aligns with external business interests.
A photovoltaic power station in Fangshan Town, Yucheng County, Henan Province, IC Photo
Against this background, the significance of holding COP30 in the Amazon is particularly prominent. International media often regard tropical rainforests as an abstract "common heritage of humanity," ignoring the reality that the people living there have long faced issues such as poor infrastructure and low development levels. The Amazon is not just an ecological region, but also inhabited territory. For example, in Roraima state, the Tucuruí transmission line project connecting the state to the national grid has been delayed for years due to judicial disputes and international pressure — the slogan of "absolute environmental protection" has prevented the construction of infrastructure without offering feasible alternatives.
As a result, Roraima has long relied on diesel power generation, later importing electricity from Venezuela. When Venezuela's power grid collapsed, the state was forced to restart a highly polluting, costly, and inefficient mode of thermal power generation. Before the transmission line was finally put into operation in September 2025, the state has paid the price of high energy prices, restricted industries, strategic vulnerability, and regional underdevelopment for years. The lesson is clear: protection cannot equal isolation.
The same logic applies to the oil and gas issue in the "Equatorial Edge" — when exploration helps Brazil's autonomous development, the dominant discourse is "risk"; when it benefits foreign companies, the discourse becomes "opportunity." The Amazon cannot be simplified into a slogan or a moral metaphor. The key is: Does Brazil have the capacity to build an autonomous development model that balances environmental protection, social inclusion, technological innovation, energy sovereignty, and regional infrastructure?
Of course, it is necessary to emphasize that criticizing international hypocrisy does not mean defending destruction. The previous Bolsonaro administration allowed illegal mining, deforestation, and the cancellation of regulations, leading Brazil to face dual isolation in diplomacy and morality, damaging its traditional image as a progressive environmental power. Brazil has one of the most advanced environmental regulatory frameworks in the world — the Forest Code — plus an energy structure dominated by renewable energy. The challenge lies in rebuilding international leadership based on sovereignty — neither yielding to external forces' "guidance" nor allowing domestic exploitative agendas.
The path ahead is clear: Reaffirm the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," acknowledging global disparities while recognizing the urgency of transformation. China, as a country with a large population and manufacturing strength, has demonstrated a model where "growth, technological innovation, energy transition, and the maintenance of sovereignty can coexist." Unlike the North Atlantic countries that use environmental issues as a tool for strategic containment, China has built a model that promotes industrialization and improves people's livelihoods through energy transition, breaking the false proposition that "economic development and environmental protection are mutually exclusive."
To strengthen global climate governance, it is essential to acknowledge a fundamental fact: without technological cooperation, structural financing, and industrial collaboration, the majority of countries cannot achieve true energy transition. The solution is not "selective environmental morality" or empty slogans of "global responsibility," but the establishment of a multilateral mechanism that shares technological development, enhances industry, and promotes innovation. In the process of building this cooperative framework, China's role is crucial — not as an opponent, but as a constructive actor in the 21st-century win-win model.
The popularization of technologies such as electric vehicles, energy storage, photovoltaics, and wind power has been possible because of China's large-scale production and continuous cost reduction. However, the United States and the European Union have not viewed this as a contribution to civilization, but rather through trade wars, tariffs, technical barriers, and narrative campaigns, attempting to hinder its spread. Essentially, the struggle is not about "climate," but about the dominance of future industrial chains.
Recent actions by the UK, Denmark, and Norway against Chinese electric buses under the guise of "safety investigations" are a clear example of this logic. The accusation that they "could be remotely disabled" lacks evidence, while these buses have operated safely in over seventy countries and have been used as official transportation at COP30. Remote diagnostics and software telemetry are standard features in the global automotive industry (including European and American manufacturers), but when the North Atlantic countries lose their competitive edge, they are interpreted as "risks." This is not a safety issue, but industrial suppression — a means to prevent affordable clean technology from truly spreading in emerging economies worldwide.
This strategy must be broken. Combating climate change relies not on protectionism disguised as "environmental responsibility," but on global production collaboration and knowledge sharing. The true alternative is to establish an international trade system based on strategic complementarity, rather than relying on sanctions, blockades, and tariffs. South-South cooperation, the "Belt and Road" initiative, and various joint development mechanisms are providing practical paths: by building transportation, energy, and digital infrastructure, developing countries can achieve modernization without repeating the old path of "pollute first, then clean up."
In Brazil, BYD's factory in Camaragibe — now the largest in Latin America and the largest outside of China — exemplifies this possibility. Such investments combine industrialization, energy transition, and quality employment opportunities, enabling Brazil to transition from a resource exporter to a clean technology producer. Similar changes are also happening in Africa: railways, ports, and electrification projects are transforming the production landscape of various countries through Sino-African cooperation — something never provided by Western colonial powers in an equal manner.
For developed countries, abandoning the moralistic stance of using climate issues as a pretext for serving harsh geopolitical goals is a prerequisite for restoring multilateral trust. Economic growth, improved living standards, and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive, but interdependent. Only a stable, prosperous, and productive society can sustain long-term environmental policies.
That is why the historical significance of Belém is profound. The holding of COP30 in the Amazon not only reminds the world of the "urgency of protection," but also reveals the "urgency of development." What Belém presents to the international community is not an abstract natural symbol, but the reality of contradictions and possibilities. Here — where forests and cities intersect, and the reality of wealth gaps is vividly displayed every day — perhaps a future-oriented spirit of climate cooperation can be rebuilt. If there is a place capable of redefining multilateralism, not as a tool for containment, but as a genuine, future-oriented covenant, then it is Belém.
In Belém, it is appropriate to deliver one of the most important insights of the 21st century for humanity: No country can tackle the climate crisis alone, and any environmental protection model that ignores the right to development and fairness will inevitably fail to last.
This article is an exclusive publication by Observer Net. The content is solely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; otherwise, legal liability will be pursued. Follow the Observer Net WeChat account guanchacn to read interesting articles daily.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7572388296941257242/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the 【Up/Down】 button below.