My lasting impressions from COP30 are quite mixed. On one hand, I feel extremely grateful and privileged to have received the opportunity to spend a week in Brazil among delegates from across the world as well as my peers from UConn. Being able to witness international climate policy being drafted and edited in real time, is an experience I would’ve never imagined myself to have in a million years. However, on the other hand, I feel extremely disappointed. The change that many of us hoped to see from this COP was left out of reach, yet again. It was quite disheartening to see that the final proposal from the conference fell short of being the “COP of Implementation”.

Many countries are still extremely divided on key issues such as climate finance and the loss and damage fund. Developing countries have been advocating for more robust action to be taken from developed countries. Developing countries want developed countries to expand their financial contributions towards them. Their arguments lie on the basis that the lack of resources and finances that they have limit them from being able to focus on just transition initiatives. Developed countries, specifically ones that are the most responsible for providing financial resources, argue that they cannot consider these more ambitious targets because they are focused on their own domestic fiscal issues.

In addition to this divide, developing countries have been pushing for the loss and damage fund to be increased up to $1.3 trillion USD at this COP. Developing countries even went as far as holding up negotiations in retaliation to developed countries blocking discussions on this topic. However, this remained semi-fruitful as the final text did include language encouraging developed countries to contribute more towards the fund. However, this goal is set to mobilize by 2035, which is still 10 years away from now. It left several non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and vulnerable nations extremely disappointed with the outcome. I have to say, I am disappointed too. This fund works to revitalize communities that have been left in jeopardy to threats from climate change and to also help recover communities that consistently face the harshest impacts from the issue. The fact that there is evidently no language to encourage and hold nations accountable to contributing to this fund, leaves many vulnerable nations in even more danger.

While I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to watch real-time negotiations and decision-making, I am so gravely disappointed by the outcomes of those negotiations. Developing and vulnerable countries need more support and resources to continue this fight against climate change. They are the least responsible for climate change, yet face the harshest impact from it. The entire ordeal is unfair, and there needs to be more of an emphasis on collaboration at the conference as opposed to the division between developing countries and developed countries. The fight against climate change is rooted in unity, and I hope that we as citizens of the world come to that realization sooner rather than later.

Kanika Chaturvedi is a senior Environmental Studies major.

Now that I am back from COP30 in Belem, Brazil, I have realized that some of the most meaningful moments happen outside of formal negotiations. While the first days of the conference I was focused on the dynamics inside the negotiation rooms, the rest of the week highlighted for me, the power of personal conversations, public interventions, and justice-centered across the conference. In this blog, I want to share a few interactions and moments that were especially memorable and impactful.

One of the most unexpected experiences was an hour-long conversation with John Kornerup Bang, the Global Head of Sustainable Growth Strategy at LEGO. What started as a brief introduction turned into a deep discussion about why the Paris Agreement succeeded where the Copenhagen conference failed. He explained how voluntary cooperation and political timing played a pivotal role in shaping Paris, and he shared insights from attending over twenty COPs. This conversation allowed me to ask many questions about the history of the conferences and helped me better understand the human strategy behind major climate milestones. I also witnessed a powerful moment when ministers from various countries were given three minutes each to speak. The most emotional intervention came from the Minister of Palestine, who emphasized their commitment to climate action despite the devastation of war back home. His request for the world to simply acknowledge their reality brought a heavy silence to the room, followed by strong, sustained applause in a show of support.

Beyond official speeches, I saw how activism and civil society shaped the atmosphere of COP. During one demonstration, African and international climate justice organizers called for renewable energy and equitable transitions. Their peaceful but firm action grounded the conference in urgency and reminded everyone that advocacy is essential for raising awareness about ongoing global injustices. Another event that stood out was the panel “Women at the Intersection of Gender, Conflict, and Climate Justice” at the UK Pavilion. Speakers from the UK, Somalia, and Peru discussed how climate change amplifies existing vulnerabilities, especially for women living in regions affected by conflict and instability. Their diverse perspectives made it clear that climate solutions must integrate gender justice, safety, and human rights. It was inspiring to see women from different parts of the world emphasize the importance of women’s leadership in climate action.

Overall, these moments have shown me that COP is far more than negotiation texts. It is a space where strategy, humanity, and urgency meet. I encourage anyone who has the opportunity to attend to engage in as many conversations as possible, as you will learn so much from the experiences, perspectives, and goals of people fighting for climate justice. I look forward to continuing to learn from the diverse voices that make this conference what it is.

Malak Nechnach is a senior studying Physiology and Neurobiology with a minor in Mathematics.

Overall, COP 30 was one of the most overwhelming but beneficial experiences of my life. Going into the conference, you know there will be many countries represented, but you never truly grasp how influential this conference is to so many areas and people around the world. Each day, I was constantly meeting someone new who had a completely different background but was there for the same goal. Everyone was there to support the climate in one way or another, but many countries had interesting ways of showing it. One of the key lessons I learned from COP is how important it is to talk to people with different perspectives. I was given the opportunity to attend an ocean panel about how to address ocean acidification. During this panel, there was a variety of speakers from different backgrounds who brought such unique perspectives to the conversation. For example, I was able to hear viewpoints from policy, finance, research, and local community representatives all focused on the same topic. Hearing these perspectives enhanced my understanding and made me realize that many of the discussions that happen at COP 30 involve countless considerations.

This leads to the next key lesson I learned from COP: how important language is in the Paris Agreement. I attended a panel about gender and climate change where a document was being reviewed, and delegates from different countries could offer feedback on the revisions. Throughout this discussion, delegates constantly recommended changes they felt were necessary. At first, I had a hard time understanding how such a small change—like a comma—could make a significant difference to a policy or document, until I heard the explanations from the delegates. For example, in the original document, one of the phrases used was “local indigenous communities.” A delegate requested that there be a comma between “local” and “indigenous” because, without it, the language implied that the agenda item would only protect indigenous communities that are local, and not all indigenous communities. This is just one example of the many corrections and small changes in policy language that can have a major impact, and it was something I learned during this discussion.

Overall, based on the key lessons I learned from COP 30, I am very excited to apply them to my personal and professional life. One of the ways I am going to apply these lessons is in the remainder of my education. As an engineering major, it can be very easy to get stuck in a technical mindset and not focus on other perspectives when implementing solutions. Based on what I learned from COP 30, I hope to change that by bringing a more holistic mindset to my professional career—looking at solutions not just from a technical standpoint, but also considering policy, community impact, and finances. Another way I am going to apply what I learned about critical language is in my future efforts to make a positive contribution to climate action. I will be more careful and intentional with the language I use and how I present my knowledge to others. Overall, COP 30 opened a variety of doors and perspectives for me that I look forward to applying in both my personal and professional life.

Sanya Sharma is a senior environmental engineering major.

When I arrived in Belém for COP30, I expected climate negotiations, speeches, and long policy documents. I didn’t expect the ocean to be so present in so many conversations, especially because previous COPs rarely gave the ocean much attention.

As I listened to scientists, Indigenous leaders, and coastal communities during COP, I started to see the ocean not just as a research subject, but as a quiet hero holding the world together. As someone who studies the ocean, I’ve long known its importance in regulating our climate and sustaining life. The ocean absorbs 30% of all the carbon dioxide we emit, and 90% of the excess heat we create. It is our biggest climate buffer, working tirelessly and silently.

But the ocean is reaching its limit. In just ten years, it has warmed by 0.2°C, an unimaginable shift for marine life. Coral bleaching is no longer rare—it is at its peak. Ocean acidification is eating away at shells and ecosystems. Sea-level rise is threatening all coastal areas. People in the coastal communities talked about falling fish catches, stronger storms, and land lost to erosion. It became clear that a weakening ocean harms not only ecosystems but also economies, food security, and traditions. Still, the ocean has rarely been given real importance in climate talks.

This year’s COP gave me hope!

For the first time, there was a full Ocean Pavilion, not a tiny booth hidden in a corner, but a central, vibrant space filled with conversations that finally recognized the ocean as a climate powerhouse. I sat in panels where local communities, policymakers, and scientists spoke side by side, and I felt something shift. I hope the ocean is no longer an afterthought.

Countries also stepped up. Brazil and France launched a Blue NDC Taskforce to accelerate ocean-based climate action. Of the 66 coastal national climate plans submitted this year, 92% included ocean measures, a number that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. Brazil also introduced the Blue Package, offering technical guidance, finance pathways, and support for countries to include blue carbon, coastal resilience, and marine conservation in their next NDC updates. Ocean Breakthroughs was another milestone. This is a set of written science-based targets for marine renewables, conservation, shipping, tourism, and aquatic food systems. An online platform will track whether countries actually follow through, adding accountability to ambition.

And in one of the most hopeful moments, the High Seas Treaty reached 60 ratifications and is now set to enter into force in January 2026. Watching leaders celebrate this long-awaited achievement, I felt genuinely emotional. Brazil has even committed to ratifying the treaty before the end of the year. For the first time, the vast areas of our global ocean with no protection will finally have a chance.

But as I walked out of COP30 on the final day, I also felt a heaviness. Because even with all this progress, there is still so much more to do.

We can’t afford to wait; this is the moment for implementation. During one panel, a local community member was asked what he thinks about the future of the ocean. He answered, “In this situation, I don’t think about the future as tomorrow.” He and his community believe the future is today, and they are already taking steps to protect the ocean. I hope decision-makers and negotiators adopt this same mindset and act urgently to confront climate change and safeguard our ecosystems.

From the ocean-focused sessions I attended, I learned that we must create climate finance that truly includes the ocean. Right now, blue finance is less than 1% of global climate finance. We must prioritize coastal and island communities that contribute the least to climate change but bear the greatest impacts. We must make sure every country includes ocean solutions in their 2025 NDC updates. And we need to align policy, funding, and business so that protecting the ocean isn’t seen as charity, it’s seen as a smart economic strategy.

As a scientist, I came to COP chasing data and policy outcomes. But I am leaving with something else—an understanding that the ocean should not be just part of the climate conversation. It is the climate conversation. As a student who wants to communicate science beyond research papers, I will continue engaging in outreach with schools and local communities, helping people understand why the ocean matters for climate change and how even small actions can help protect it.

Now more than ever, the ocean needs our protection, and we need the ocean to shield us from the accelerating impacts of climate change.

Anagha Payyambally is a marine sciences graduate student.

COP30 really solidified that climate change is not going anywhere and that we are wildly under prepared for the consequences of our actions. The fires and flooding venue were a strong reminder that we need to act however, the negotiations were a little fruitless. But, the knowledge and culture sharing was truly once in a lifetime. There is something wildly special about tens of thousands of people coming together and be unified in the fact that we want something to happen and are dedicated to change.

Beyond just the personal growth opportunities of learning how to communicate with people across every culture and learning the basics of how a conference is run. It was truly a once in a lifetime experience to go to a major city in Brazil with people from all over the world to see and understand how we can come together and implement the solutions to the problems we have been discussing. The major thing that I took away from this conference was not what more developed countries are doing but what small island nations and countries in the global south are doing. They are the ones that have the opportunity to really drive immense amount of change and develop sustainability. I think I am the most excited about the solutions that they can come up with and continuing to break away from western perceptions of those countries. They are not helpless countries just looking for a handout in the form of aid. They are creative, solution oriented, bold, driven, and actively making changes to their ways of life. I think the key to a lot of what COP30 discussed is bringing in large business and giving them ways to see how they can support and participate in these spaces.

The biggest lesson that I continue to have in my life but has grown from this trip is that as a person of privilege it is my job to understand and listen to the struggles of those who aren’t as privileged. I have an intense feeling of responsibility when it comes to understanding what the world is going through and I tend to focus on the harms that colonization, imperialism, and generational corruption impose but I never really spend time understanding how those countries learned how to thrive amid western chaos and interference. I want to spend more time understanding how humanities is able to be resilient despite our prejudice. I think this trip had some really great examples of how we as a people can connect and grow with one another rather than against one another. I am excited and hopeful that there are more examples of this growth throughout the world.

Caroline Keary is a master’s student in the Social Responsibility and Impact in Business program.

Being a Real Estate & Urban Economics Major in the UConn@COP30 Fellowship program in Belém, Brazil has both made me a better climate advocate and provided significant personal growth. At first, I believed it would be huge rooms solely discussing policy, asking well-researched questions, and hoping that local initiatives would be addressed within the vast nature of it all. While all 3 remain true, there was an entire world filled with spontaneous solution ideation sessions in hallways with the world’s climate leaders spanning from NGOs to the private sector, opportunities to ask on-the-spot questions about topics you didn’t previously know existed, and having unique opportunities to address critical issues in your region in ways that will have a lasting impact.

The theme of this year’s COP is implementation, turning ambition into tangible realities. It is both a necessity for addressing the climate crisis and a possible personal philosophy that I believe all students should incorporate, especially if they have a potential solution for a better future. The reason COP needs to choose this topic is that we are seeing a slowdown (and often a regression) in the significant progress made during the Paris Agreement of 2015. The Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF) is one of many ambitious financial mechanisms that aim to compensate countries for restoration and conservation efforts. There are a plethora of factors, including land ownership, land use, historical conditioning, and more, that can create complex variables in the conversation. How do you ask 83+ countries to agree on a joint solution? It is a question that is continually revisited. Not to mention incorporating the perspectives of indigenous communities who have harmoniously lived amongst the many vulnerable lands that would benefit from these conservation efforts, but aren’t often represented in policy-making.

What does that mean as a student studying business? It means finding strong mentorship, building a diverse network, and being crystal clear on the risks, mitigations, & next steps needed to take toward meaningful action.

A group of us students met an individual who was quite familiar with the UConn Huskies and helped shed some light on the topic. We took a walk-through of the Country Pavilions with the Director of the Deloitte Center for Sustainable Progress, Dr. Freedom-Kai Phillips, who was a former student of Professor Stephen Park (Associate Professor of Business Law at the UConn School of Business). He explained how “Sustainability can be a Rubik’s cube, confusing at first, but with the right pattern-identification, and consistent ambition, you’ll be able to get the right solutions you need”. It became apparent that most of the professionals at COP30 not only identify patterns but are actively building meaningful relationships to solve the complex Rubik’s Cube. Understanding localized players within your space is critical as a diverse network of technical and non-technical actors will help create high-integrity assets for your value chain. The COP experience highlighted how it also supports economic innovation and job creation, enabling the execution of these ambitious frameworks and financial mechanisms.

I look beyond this educational experience with significant hope about the direction we’re headed. Awakening a commitment to keeping my eyes peeled for patterns in capacity-building and seeking potential solutions or frameworks to bring back to our communities back home.

Aminieli Hopson is a senior studying Real Estate and Urban Economics.

It is easy to get swept up in buzzwords when discussing climate change. On Day 3 of COP30, I attended a session called “America is All In: U.S. Climate Action Continues.” This panel featured former U.S. climate policy leaders who expressed their enthusiasm for continuing the fight against climate change despite the U.S. federal government not actively participating in COP30 negotiations.

More than learning about the U.S.’s persistence in staying engaged internationally, I was surprised by the diverse professional backgrounds of these officials, as someone who hopes to enter public service and contribute to policymaking on an international scale, seeing how their careers were shaped by both technical expertise and administrative experience was very insightful.

I appreciated that the U.S. representatives in this session included former negotiators who brought a mix of technical expertise as well as project and change management skills. Notably, one negotiator and former U.S. Department of State employee was trained as an environmental engineer and held a Ph.D. in the subject. He joined the Department of State after a prestigious post-doctoral fellowship at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is a testament to how much technical expertise and domain knowledge are valued in the policymaking space. I also appreciated that there was an event titled “Jobs for the Public Sector: Building a Recurrent Supply of Skilled Experts for NDCs.” Events like this signal that there is a real need for technical experts (financial analysts, scientists, legal specialists, and others) in addition to policy experts.

I also learned that there is a need for people who can manage projects and navigate the substantial amount of paperwork and administrative complexity involved in these bureaucratic processes. Trigg Talley, a former senior climate negotiator with over thirty years of experience with the State Department, emphasized that they look for people with project-management experience: individuals who can move work forward, negotiate with diverse stakeholders, and simply “get things done.” One of his fellow panelists exemplified this. This panelist did not hold a technical background but instead had relevant project management and oversight experience. Having worked in the UN Secretariat, she had a strong understanding of the legal, technical, and administrative procedures involved in drafting and passing resolutions. This experience provided a comprehensive foundation when she later moved into the U.S. Department of State, where her familiarity with these processes enhanced her negotiating effectiveness. Similarly, another panelist described the extensive inter-agency coordination her role required, particularly in preparing for G-7 and G-20 meetings as well as engagements with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. 

Understanding how federal and multilateral institutions (such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund) function and how to coordinate across them is an important yet often overlooked skill. 

Even though the U.S. has stepped back from formal negotiations, there is still significant demand for these skills. The current U.S. representatives are operating under the slogan “The U.S. is all in,” which signals that while they cannot negotiate, they are still present to represent the climate-forward agenda. Many current representatives and former negotiators are attending under the sponsorship of various organizations and nonprofits, continuing to collaborate with governments, NGOs, civil society, and the broader public. Their presence demonstrates that the U.S. is still “in” and invested in addressing climate change, something that underscored the importance not only of commitments, but of the skilled people who carry them out.

Pranavi Rebala is a senior studying Mathematics, Economics, and Urban & Community Studies.

After my first two days at COP30 in Brazil, I was immersed in Brazil’s culture and learned from representatives of countries around the world.

My first day at the conference was spent in the Green Zone. At the Conference of the Parties (COP), the Green Zone is largely dedicated to demonstrating tangible climate solutions and expanding public awareness of environmental solutions. The Green Zone is open to all, and features pavilions showcasing Brazilian governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private companies. Additionally, the Green Zone promoted national and Amazônia culture, featuring indigenous vendors, local cuisine, and art. Furthermore, an objective of the event was to raise awareness and engage the population of the host city, Belém, with the UN’s climate agenda. I was able to visit a variety of pavilions, but the ones that interested me the most included a talk by the vice president of Brazil, Geraldo Alckmin, a COP and coffee: Oceans talk with Deloitte, and an exhibition by Be8 Energy. Be8 showcased a semi-truck powered by renewable biodiesel. Additionally, the Green Zone featured pavilions advocating for an end to the genocide in Palestine, as Israel’s invasion has devastated the natural environment of the region. Overall, the Green Zone provided me with an immersive experience that framed my perspective as I spent the rest of my week in the Green Zone.

My second day at the conference was spent in the Blue Zone. The Blue Zone is where the “magic” happens. And by magic, I of course mean official climate negotiations. Access to the Blue Zone is restricted to official delegations. For most of the day, I explored the delegation pavilions with fellow UConn@COP fellows, Andy Zhang and Saanya Sharma. The pavilions featured each country’s environmental commitments and national culture. It was extremely interesting to see the variation and organization of each country’s pavilion. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, China, Germany, and, of course, the host country, Brazil, were all large and featured alongside the conference’s main promenade. In addition to exploring the pavilions, I sat in on a variety of panels throughout the day. The panels I listened to explored the business coalitions underlying Brazil’s decarbonization, what structural reforms are needed to transition electrical grids away from fossil fuels, and climate resilience engineering. As I reflected upon my day, I realized these panels each demonstrated different methods of change. The panel on Brazilian businesses and climate resilience engineering emphasized the outsized role private involvement must play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This contrasted with the renewable energy panel, which largely focused on making large structural changes, emphasizing societal and governance shifts, including permitting reforms, investing in grids in anticipation of increasing demand, and increasing grid interconnections. Overall, the panels and pavilions demonstrated the diversity of climate solutions on display at COP30, and I am excited to continue to explore the conference over the next 3 days.

Brett Hurley is a second year law student.

COP30 marks the ten-year anniversary since the Paris Climate Change Agreement was passed. Delegates have been speaking about pushing this year’s COP to be the “COP of Implementation” because of the serious inaction that has been taking place since the Paris Climate Change Agreement. One of the key parts of the agreement was keeping global temperature under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Currently, we are on the cusp of 1.5 degrees Celsius and if current trends continue, this target is unachievable. This is a huge point of discussion at COP30. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are continuously advocating for this goal to not be overlooked and undermined. From what it seems, developed countries do not seem to be too bothered by the fact that this goal is not going to be achieved. In fact, they have shifted their attention to being just below 2 degrees Celsius. 

So, why is this problematic? Many SIDS cannot afford the stakes of the climate projections in regard to global temperatures rising to about 2 degrees Celsius. They are barely surviving with current climate trends as of right now. Tuvalu, in particular, gave an extremely powerful speech at a formal high-level COP30 proceeding. Their delegate said that “the 1.5 target is not just a political aspiration but an obligation”. It is a matter that needs urgent attention and need. If change continues to fail to happen, Tuvalu’s fate becomes extremely doomed. If developed countries fail to keep the 1.5 target in mind and if they continue to be greedy with their donations to the Loss and Damage Fund, the sovereign nation of Tuvalu and many other SIDS will cease to exist by 2050. That’s why action needs to take place now.  

There have been several discussions and plans to implement programs for countries to provide support and aid for those that are disproportionately impacted. Developed countries have even, to a certain extent, owned up to some responsibility for the vast damage they have caused to our environment. However, plans and discussions do not mean execution by any means. We simply do not have the luxury of ten more years until our climate rises past 1.5 degrees Celsius and truly, we have achieved irreparable damage to the environment. 

So, what’s the hold up? Why aren’t developed nations contributing to the Loss and Damage Fund more? After all, they are the ones that are most responsible for the state of our environment currently. There are three main points of contention for developed countries. The first being the admission of some sort of guilt and responsibility for their role in causing climate change. It could, in the future, become a highly legal problem for those countries, and they often hesitate to donate in reaction. Second being that there is a lack of practicality in the mechanisms of developing finance principles for what the fund can be used for. Developed nations can argue that it is hard to tell what a natural climatic event versus an anthropogenic-linked climate event is. So, distributing money is harder because of this struggle. Thirdly, they want to use that money to deal with issues in their own nation and prioritize their people’s needs first. Unfortunately, I do not believe any of these points are valid. The first point regarding legal responsibility is that it is merited. Consequences for actions, whether good or bad, are always going to come around one way or the other. There is no reason to hesitate on the basis of what could happen in the future, even if legal action against the countries who have largely contributed to climate change is in good regard. Millions of people are being displaced because of climatic events; the fund provides a way for them to cope with these changes, and it is important that they are addressed. The second point of contention is also invalid. At this point, every natural disaster event is linked to anthropogenic causes. Even if it follows regular weather patterns, the intensity of the storm surely is linked to anthropogenic causes. There are simply no longer any cases of natural climate variability that exist in modern society that are not linked to anthropogenic causes. Lastly, the third point of contention is, again, unfair to the people of the world. People who have done little to nothing to contribute to the emissions are facing the most amount of impact from climate change. It is a matter of moral obligation that nations put humanity first and contribute to the fund as part of their moral responsibility to the world after the position they put the rest of the world in.  

COP30 must be the “COP of Implementation”. We simply do not have enough time left to reverse the damage that we have caused. I hope developed nations and developing nations are able to come together to come to a consensus that puts Mother Earth at the forefront of all of our solutions. Mother Earth needs to be protected at all costs, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that we are putting in the effort to do so.  

Kanika Chaturvedi is a senior Environmental Studies major.

My first day at COP was oddly both what I was expecting and equally overwhelming. Before attending COP30, I had done research on previous COPs and was familiar with COP possessing a slow mediation process where countries often do not reach a “satisfying” conclusion. It was a known fact that different nations contain different perspectives, which consequently makes negotiation extremely difficult. There are notable deep-rooted historical divides and groupings of cultures, and while I was aware of this, seeing these relationships firsthand was a culture shock compared to social and racial groupings I had witnessed in America on a national level. One of the first events I attended at COP was the COP Presidency Consultation on Mountains and Climate Change. This meeting was the final consultation that was established to draw a conclusion on how to move forward in addressing climate issues in mountain regions. The Mountain Group, represented by a delegate from Kyrgyzstan as well as Nepal and Georgia, were the main drivers in proposing annual discussions on mountains and climate change. These groups also wanted to instate climate change in mountainous regions as an agenda item. The European Union (EU) countered this request by claiming that their region also has mountains and feels an annual conversation, as well as having this topic as an agenda item, is unnecessary. They stated that this workstream seemed counterproductive and it was preferable to have a streamlined subsidiary. Japan also agreed with this rhetoric and claimed that despite having mountain ranges in their region, they also aligned with the EU. I found it interesting that despite mountain regions collectively forming negotiations and counter-responses, the regions seemed to separate into groups: lower-income countries and economic and political powerhouses.

Later on, I also attended the COP Presidency Consultation on the Special Needs and Circumstances of Africa, which I found especially insightful in terms of highlighting the dynamics between groups of countries. Colombia began the discussion by highlighting the regional bias of focusing on Africa and how this focus delegitimizes COP concerns. Pakistan also agreed with Colombia’s point and added that developing countries shouldn’t “compete vulnerabilities,” because all developing countries should be spotlighted at COP—a term that was echoed throughout the conference. The African Group disagreed, emphasizing that their unique position as a region that contributed less than 4% to global emissions yet struggles the most with climate change consequences raises a specific concern that needs to be addressed. Tanzania argued that this conference was “not a vulnerability contest” but rather a focused discussion on Africa utilizing “information already on the table.” South Africa reiterated the claim that Africa contributes the least to climate change but is subject to so many of its adverse effects, emphasizing that the region’s women, youth, and rural communities were most vulnerable. The South African delegate also stated that the country was already grappling with heightened food insecurity, noting that climate change caused a 34% decrease in food production on the continent. Zimbabwe, the Caribbean Community, and several other African countries emphasized that the Paris Agreement did not need to be rewritten, but rather implemented to provide attention to Africa.

Nevertheless, a multitude of countries sided with Colombia’s initial statement, mainly Guatemala, Peru, Uruguay, and other Latin American countries. Much of the discussion converged into a discussion of Latin America’s own hardships faced by climate change. Uruguay’s delegate (also representing Ecuador) described that “Africa is repeatedly brought up” in COP conversations and that it has consistently been “controversial.” Uruguay mentioned that Latin America specifically needs more funds to address climate change, and as the discussion came to a close, the country reiterated the point that they agreed with their fellow countries of specifically “Latin America.” The Paris Agreement addresses developing countries as a marginalized whole, and they do not support “separating Africa” as a distinguished group. I find this conversation as a whole extremely interesting, as I feel that it underscores the desire for countries to push nationalism while engaging in cultural or ethnic groupings depending on their identity.

Latin America’s stance reflects a concern that elevating Africa as a distinct category could undermine their visibility. Africa may be marginalized or facing a climate crisis in a distinct way, but other countries seem to view the addressing of these issues as a threat to their region’s focus. Latin American countries share a culture and climate (as well as climate issues), which creates a solidarity based on history and culture. However, a shared solidarity can also isolate alternative regions as “others” who are a threat to their own climate focus, a dynamic that is likely emphasized within this COP negotiation.

Toriana Grooms is a junior majoring in political science and English with a minor in German.