The UN Climate Change Conference in Belem, Brazil, ended on Saturday, November 22. Still, countries were unable to reach an agreement on a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, despite support from over 80 nations.
This raises questions about why every COP conference seems to fail in establishing a comprehensive agreement on fossil fuels. Is it due to the absence of many world leaders this year? Why is it difficult for indigenous peoples to find space in the decision-making process? Given the recurring patterns at each COP, does this summit still have a point?
The answer lies not only in the diplomatic scuffles of the negotiating room but also in the domestic realities of key nations. By examining the contradictory position of Indonesia and the profound lack of public awareness that enables it, we can understand why the COP process remains stuck in a cycle of underwhelming results.
After two weeks of discussions, the final text of the conference contained no mention of fossil fuels, despite 88 countries backing a proposal to develop a roadmap for transitioning away from them. These countries aimed to include the proposal in the Mutirao decision to facilitate progress over the coming year. However, the final text did not reflect these calls; it contained no language regarding a transition away from fossil fuels.
Read More: Prabowo-Gibran’s One-Year Report Card From A Gender Perspective
The proposal faced significant opposition from major oil-producing countries and heavy users of fossil fuels. Nations such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, China, and other members of the Arab Group argued that each country should have the autonomy to define its own energy path based on its unique economic circumstances.
The deadlock surrounding the fossil fuels agreement is also attributed to a leadership dilemma. Brazil proposed a compromise consisting of roadmaps for deforestation and fossil fuels that would exist outside the COP framework. While this proposal received enthusiastic support in the plenary sessions, its legal standing remains uncertain.
As an alternative, the COP30 President, Andre Correa do Logo, announced a voluntary, non-binding roadmap for a transition away from fossil fuels. However, this initiative is non-binding and exists outside the formal UN process, so its power to compel action is limited.
This diplomatic failure was compounded by the conspicuous absence of key world leaders, including those from the U.S., China, and India, which sapped the proceedings of political momentum and legitimacy. Which raises the question, why have a two-week-long multinational gathering at all if so many leaders aren’t there?
Where is Indonesia’s position on the fossil fuels agreement in the COP30?
At COP30, Indonesia’s official position was characterized by a public commitment to a just energy transition, while simultaneously aligning with forces that resisted a binding fossil fuel phase-out. As a key voice within the G77 bloc of developing nations, Indonesia argued that any transition must be equitable and account for different national circumstances.
However, this public stance was undermined by its actions in the negotiation rooms. Indonesia was notably criticized for its role in weakening key agreements, particularly on carbon market rules (Article 6), where it was reported to have echoed talking points from fossil fuel lobbyists. This earned the country the “Fossil of the Day” award from climate observers, who pointed to the presence of dozens of fossil fuel lobbyists within its delegation.
Domestically, Indonesia’s energy policy continues to be locked into coal, which powers over 70% of its electricity, and its official climate plan still projects rising emissions, revealing a significant gap between its international rhetoric and its domestic energy reality.
This gap between Indonesia’s international rhetoric and its obstructive actions is not accidental; it is enabled by a critical lack of domestic awareness. A national survey by the Center for the Study of Islam and Society (PPIM) UIN Jakarta reveals a critical gap: 73.48% of the Indonesian population is unfamiliar with the term “energy transition.”
This widespread lack of awareness creates a permissive environment for the government’s ambiguous stance. With minimal public pressure or scrutiny on the specifics of energy policy, the government is insulated from domestic demand for more ambitious climate action, allowing it to prioritize fossil fuel-dependent economic interests without high political cost.
Read More: Leftist Books Are Not Dangerous; What Is Dangerous Is A State That Confiscates Books
The PPIM national survey findings also show that Indonesians have various perceptions about energy transition, with a significant understanding of the concept of shifting from fossil fuels to electricity, especially electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as solar power.
It seems that the issue of energy transition is still a topic of discussion among the “elite” and tends to be oriented towards the upper middle class. This is because, of the 26.52% who are familiar with the term energy transition, only 23.62% of the public truly understand the term.
This directly enables the leadership dilemma seen at COP30. The government can engage in high-level talks about transition frameworks, knowing the domestic conversation lacks the depth and breadth to hold it accountable for opposing a fossil fuel phase-out. Therefore, Indonesia’s international negotiating position is not just a product of geopolitical and economic calculations but is also fundamentally underpinned by a significant domestic knowledge gap.
The struggle for an Indigenous seat at the table on COP30
The problem of exclusion is not unique to Indonesia; it is a systemic flaw at the COP itself. While Indonesia’s public is left out of the conversation at home, Indigenous communities, who protect vital rainforests, are systematically marginalized at the summit. Last year, just 170 Indigenous delegates attended, compared with 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP.
Despite indigenous communities protecting rainforests yet their voices remain underrepresented while industries driving the climate crisis hold disproportionate influence. Without meaningful Indigenous representation at COP, policies to protect forests can be diluted or ignored.
Funding meant for forest protection often fails to reach the communities safeguarding them. Strong Indigenous voices are critical for climate solutions; their knowledge and expertise are essential to protecting ecosystems and reducing emissions.
Amnesty International noted much of the so-called Mutirao process at COP30 was conducted behind closed doors, with state delegations only, thereby resulting in a lack of oversight by Indigenous Peoples and civil society, who could not observe the proceedings. This lack of transparency, along with the fractious consensus process and unchecked influence of the fossil fuel industry, continues to pose fundamental problems and gives a stronger voice to calls for reforms to the summit and its organizing body, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
If COP meetings always end in deadlock on commitments to reduce fossil fuel use, with many national leaders absent and a lack of participatory, inclusive, and transparent negotiations, this leaves civil society and Indigenous Peoples outside the actual decision-making process. Does COP30 still have any meaning among countries of the world to address the climate crisis?
