Belém, a city located close to the Amazon rainforest, which itself is often referred to in almost any language as the "lungs of the earth," hosted COP 30, the last of conferences on climate change to date, in mid-November. Most of our readers will probably know that the term "COP" is an abbreviation for "Conference of Parties". The conference itself is, as we shall see shortly, meaningless. Moreover, its name is malapropos! Every international conference is, by definition, a conference of the national "parties" participating in that conference. Therefore, all international conferences held within or on the fringes of the United Nations system are each a "conference of parties". This name therefore says nothing about the substance of the conference. Under this appellation, it is impossible to understand that these meetings are held under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The inappropriateness is obvious, but at the same time very fitting. Because these conferences are organised to do nothing, or rather to ruminate on platitudes. There is nothing but parties.
Some may retort and say "exaggeration" perhaps. Well, why then were all the three conferences held from COP 26 in Glasgow, Scotland (2021) all the way to COP 30 in Belém this year hosted either by countries that are significant in the world system exclusively as producers of petroleum, such as the United Arab Emirates (2023) and Azerbaijan (2024), or by Egypt (2022), ruled by dictator al-Sisi, who owes his entire political stature to Saudi Arabia, number one producer of oil next only the United States? Can we say in relation to these choices, comparable to the murderer returning to the scene of the crime, that the whole world was gathering at the murderer's abode?
We implore those who are old enough to please explain it to the young because we all lived through that period together. During the 2015 Paris COP 21 Conference, the whole world talked about that conference day and night claiming that the future of the planet was being salvaged. The years between 2015 and 2023 were spent with the sermons of a very young Swedish girl, a child almost, Greta Thunberg, being used as a puppet, and with "Fridays for Future" demonstrations mobilising young people solely for the environment and nothing but the environment. The "climate change" issue, the gravest problem facing humanity according to those involved in all those activities, suddenly lost all its importance when Greta Thunberg (now a grown, albeit still young, woman of 22) raised her voice against imperialism and Zionism in the face of the Gaza genocide We will revisit this question: it is in fact not only the division of the movement over its stance against Zionism that brought an end to the series of actions called "Fridays for Future," which aimed to confine the vision of youth to a single issue. It is upheaval in capitalism's agenda. But let us still ask the question: why were the very beneficial Fridays against climate change abandoned if the world is heading, as was said ad nauseam, towards a catastrophe? Meanwhile, the COP meetings were left to the care of oil and gas-rich countries with reactionary governments like the UAE and Azerbaijan, effectively entrusting the lamb to the wolf.
Latin America's lesser evil, Lula, comes on the stage
After years of being handed over to oil tycoons or their henchmen (such as Egypt's al-Sisi), this year's COP meeting moved to Brazil. Unlike the oil-soaked sheikhs and their henchmen who hosted COP in previous years, Brazil is also strong in industry and agriculture. It exports helicopters to Angola, medical products to Mozambique, soy to China, meat to Europe, invests in its poorer cousins in Latin America, and accepts migrant workers from those countries under miserable conditions. But all this should not mislead us. With an annual production of 5 million barrels of crude oil, it ranks 6th in the world (2024), ahead of all West Asian (Middle Eastern) countries except Saudi Arabia. Oil production, refining and distribution are carried out by a powerful state-owned company called Petrobras.
But the person at the helm is no sheikh or dictator. Brazil is led by Lula, now serving his third term as president, a former labour leader who has taken on the role of “lesser evil” on a continent of countless reactionary leaders from Argentina’s Milei to Salvador’s Bukele, even outshining the much-celebrated but obligingly obedient “leftist" president of Chile, Gabriel Boric. And then, of course, Brazil is the repository of the “lungs of the world”, Lula's trump card, the Amazons, the still resistant rain forests despite unremitting pillage, with its indigenous peoples who have yet to encounter the lifestyle known as "civilisation", a forest of gigantic size that absorbs a significant portion of the carbon dioxide emitted all over the planet.
On the first day of the conference, in his opening speech, Lula said that COP 30 needed to draw up a solid roadmap for all countries to move away from fossil fuels and that the whole world needed to agree on this. Ten days later, the final declaration, accepted after much wrangling, does not even mention fossil fuels!
In this context, is there anything surprising in the following lines written by an expert in the field before the COP 30 meeting even began? "… as countries prepare to gather in Brazil for COP30, the Paris agreement, and by extension the UNFCCC itself, is teetering on the brink of irrelevance. "
Let us also invite our readers to an entertaining exercise and ask them to return, in the light of this information, to the photograph heading this article. We would ask them look at the figure in the centre, whose face is clouded with despair during the discussion of a final declaration that makes no mention of fossil fuels. The expression on the face of Brazilian diplomat André Corrêa do Lago, acting as the President of COP 30, says it all.
Annual report of the International Energy Agency
A few days before the opening of COP 30, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its annual report entitled "World Energy Outlook". What a coincidence! No, it is not a coincidence that the IEA report was released just before COP 30. That is absolutely acceptable. What we find ironic is that the IEA report, released immediately before a COP 30 meeting whose final statement makes no mention of fossil fuels, presents oil, natural gas and nuclear energy production and consumption as inevitable.
Let us quote a lengthy excerpt from the report:
“In WEO-2025, all the scenarios indicate ample global supplies of oil and gas in the near term. Oil markets already reflect this, with today’s geopolitical fragility coexisting with oil prices in the $60-$65 per barrel range. A similar easing of market balances for natural gas appears imminent, as new projects for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports come online.
Final investment decisions for new LNG projects have surged in 2025, adding to the expected wave in natural gas supply in coming years. Around 300 billion cubic metres of new annual LNG export capacity is scheduled to start operation by 2030, leading to a 50% increase in available global LNG supply. Around half the new capacity is being built in the United States, and a further 20% in Qatar.”
The carefree tone of the report has probably not escaped the careful reader. In all three scenarios, the increase in the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power, anathema in the past, is presented as the most natural and almost inevitable thing. In fact, we could say that the International Energy Agency's report is the justification for the absence of any mention of fossil fuels in the final report of the Belém meeting. It seems to say, quite candidly, "what else can be done?"
Of course, it should be added that the United States, under President Trump, withdrew from the entire Framework Convention on Climate Change deal from the very first day of his second term. (This decision was made after a long span of time in office during Trump’s first term. Biden then rejoined the framework, but Trump severed ties once again.) However, one would expect this fact to strengthen the hand of countries and organisations committed to combating climate change. Since the most powerful of the countries whose government was in denial of the scientific data on "climate change" had exited the organisation, one would have expected the organisation to cling even more tightly to its 1.5 degrees Celsius warming target and its line on moving away from fossil fuels. But the exact opposite happened. So let us now examine the reasons behind this somewhat bizarre development, which runs completely counter to the atmosphere that existed in the 2010s and early 2020s.
From green anaesthesia to fascist euthanasia
First, let us outline the issue in its most general form. We will subsequently delve into the finer details. In the most general terms, behind this development lies the spread of the notion that, as a result of the great depression (the world economic crisis) that capitalism sank into after 2008, each country should look after its own interest and nothing else. The rise of nationalism and fascism, of racism and militarism and the shadow of a third world war extending over the future projects of the bourgeoisie in all countries is clear for all to see. World capitalism has entered a different climate zone. Each institution, each alliance, each practice, and each ideology of the previous era is being worn down under the onslaught of this new climate, sometimes resisting to a certain extent before giving in, sometimes surrendering rather rapidly. The crisis of the bourgeois ecological movement is part of this general process. However, while it is necessary to state this, it is not sufficient. Unless we examine the concrete mediations of the emergence of the crisis in this particular field, we cannot make predictions about how strong the resistance will be or how effective the assault will become.
Let us first address the most general point. At the root of capitalism's current crisis lies the fact that the problems arising from the logic of the functioning of the economy based on private property cannot be solved by capital itself, given the level of development reached by the productive forces. Climate change and all kinds of damage to our natural environment are prime examples of this general law. Capital, in its insatiable hunger for surplus value, has plundered the earth and, with the fossil fuel resources (coal, oil, and natural gas) that it used in the early modern capitalist era and other techniques that cause serious damage to the environment, has now led to a crisis situation. Expecting the same social force, namely capital, to put an end to these problems within a mode of production based on the same relations of production is to demand the impossible. As long as fossil fuels remain the most profitable and abundant energy sources, capital will continue to extract and use them. To prevent this, it is necessary to seriously limit or even suppress the operation of the law of value and to eliminate the extraction of surplus value as the fundamental criterion in production decisions. These are impossible within the capitalist mode of production. Therefore, when faced with a very serious and urgent situation, the bourgeoisie hesitated for a very short time when considered against the scale of history, but then succumbed once again to the lure of surplus value and abandoned this goal. All serious sources reporting on the recent decisions of oil and natural gas companies state that these companies have begun to return to oil and natural gas again, putting renewable energy sources on the backburner, that banks are competing with each other to support fossil fuel investments, and that states are backing these tendencies, even though they know how dangerous the situation is.
The second point is again one of general scope. As we have repeatedly emphasised in our previous writings on climate change and the destruction of nature, it is clear that the imperialist countries, which have enriched themselves through capitalism's destruction of nature, must now foot the bill for their past exploitation. But naturally this runs counter to imperialist interests. Imperialist countries have never frankly declared that they will shirk their duty of paying this bill; they have promised to provide substantial financial support to poor countries during the "green transition," but they have failed to keep their promises, fulfilling only a fraction of their commitments. Now, step by step, these commitments are being forgotten. Imperialist countries have boiled the frog.
Some may counter this argument by saying that even at this latest Belém conference, European Union countries, unlike other imperialist countries, have not abandoned the climate change agenda of the 2010s. This is true at the level of international political platforms. However, when it comes to fulfilling the commitments contained in the declarations signed, European countries have behaved like America and others. A large portion of the share that should have long been paid to poor countries by European Union members has still not been paid. So why the contradiction? Here, the influence of Green and social-capitalist (formerly "social-democratic") movements in Europe plays a role. These movements cannot remain indifferent to this agenda because they have managed to maintain their position on the political spectrum by responding to the ecological sensibilities of the modern petty-bourgeoisie. However, when it comes to practice, they act contrary to their commitments due to the selfish attitude of the middle classes in imperialist countries.
Thirdly, there is the "perverse" functioning of the capitalist market system under certain conditions. We explained this concept earlier in the context of the boom experienced by economies such as Turkey's at the onset of the Great Depression, which grew very rapidly in that period as a result of the deep crisis in the world economy. Boom as a result of crisis instead of bust. While the logic of economic science (even of bourgeois economic science) finds the market system's behaviour at certain moments to be rational, the functioning of the markets leads to the exact opposite. This is what we call "perversion". We can explain this as follows in the area we are now focusing on: the effect on the market of capital destroying the planet's productive forces by increasing the production and consumption of fossil energy sources to the utmost limit should, according to neoclassical bourgeois economics, result in a reduction in fossil fuel use. However, due to the greenhouse effect and the melting of polar ice caps, many fossil fuel sources in the Arctic region, which were not profitable for exploitation in the past, are now highly profitable (and also yield land rent). Consequently, capital has embarked on massive investments in polar regions, particularly the Arctic, lured by the promise of high profits and rent (in other words, a total of surplus value), even though the interests of human society as a whole demand moving away from fossil fuels. Thus, the increasing cost of fossil fuels for humanity translates into greater surplus value for capital and, consequently, even heavier costs for humanity.
Fourthly comes the special role the US plays in the world today. We have already mentioned this above. Trump withdrew from the climate change framework agreement late in his first term, but this time he did so from day one. His abandonment of the COP conferences is part of a more comprehensive energy and climate change policy. Trump's approach to fossil fuels is summed up in the media with this short phrase: "Drill, baby, drill!" Trump is not only enthusiastic about oil and natural gas, but also has great sympathy for new shale gas and oil extraction techniques ("fracking"), which raise serious concern due to the severe environmental problems they are liable to cause. Furthermore, he does not shy away from approving projects that will destroy nature, such as transport infrastructure spanning thousands of miles across protected areas in Alaska. While doing this, he is also withdrawing support from electric vehicles, which have been championed as an effective solution to dependence on fossil fuels. (We need to note, though, that the promotion of electric vehicles as a solution to the energy quandary actually means adopting a purely bourgeois perspective. Unless the cost of manufacturing these vehicles is drastically reduced, it is impossible for large sections of the population to benefit from them. But that is an entirely separate matter for discussion.)
Fifthly, the latest generation of productive forces are energy-hungry on a massive scale. Artificial intelligence research and big data centres consume unprecedented levels of energy. Moreover, this energy must be electricity. Therefore, not only must electricity be produced in sufficient quantities, but its transmission and distribution are also prerequisites for the development of this generation of productive forces. In fact, for this reason, while investments that were generally made in the past on the basis of such advanced productive forces became a subject of competition between different geographical regions, with each region (states, municipalities, etc.) offering companies very high concessions (infrastructure support, tax breaks, etc.) in order to attract such investments, today, when the possibility of investment in these branches of industry arises, it immediately creates worries, due to fears that the company will create a level of consumption that will prevent the public's water and electricity needs from being met. Therefore, in all countries with the capacity to produce such technologies (especially the US and China), governments are striving with all their might to develop electricity generation and distribution capacity so as not to fall behind in the technology race, setting aside all other considerations.
Finally, we come to the question of war. The hurricane of war-nationalism-militarism-fascism that has engulfed the world has already led to wars with worldwide impact (Ukraine and Gaza) and is gradually laying the foundations for a Third World War. This factor is so important that we will address it in two stages.
Let us address the factor of energy being weaponised as the sixth factor. In modern history, there are numerous examples of energy resources being used as a weapon between countries or groups of countries (alliances) in serious conflict with each other through embargoes, blockades, export bans and other means. It has been said that Britain's oil blockade against Germany during World War One had a significant impact on the outcome of the war. During World War Two, in the war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which really determined the overall outcome of the world war itself, the German desire to make use of Caucasian oil played a major role. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Arab oil-producing countries imposed an effective oil embargo on the United States in response to its support for Israel. Many more examples may be cited, including the cessation of the delivery of Russian gas to European Union countries during the current war in Ukraine. In the period we are entering, while producer countries in particular are preparing to use energy resources as a weapon of war, in ways similar to the historical examples we have cited, net energy consumer countries have also begun to prioritise their own energy security above all else. Once again, the nature of the capitalist mode of production, based on competition rather than planning, is leading to a crisis in humanity's relationship with nature, not at the market level this time, but through the existence of many states.
Finally, we come to the biggest and most dangerous factor: the threat of war between major powers turning into a Third World War, which even the bourgeoisie's political leaders, generals and ideologues can no longer hide, and indeed do not shy away from discussing in the most explicit terms. Trump famously changed the name of the notorious Pentagon from the Department of Defence to the Department of War. Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth has said that the US needs to boost arms production levels to a “wartime footing”. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has, together with the leaders of major EU countries, launched a "ReArm Europe" programme worth hundreds of billions of euros. The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of France, General Fabien Mandon, has argued that "France must come to terms with the idea of losing its children." Taiwan, with a population of 23 million, is preparing for a prospective attack from China and has announced that it will purchase an additional $40 billion worth of weapons from the US.
How will tanks move? What will planes fly with? Has a technology been invented that produces their fuel using renewable energy? War requires oil! When the war in Ukraine first began, we explained at length how the new NATO concept adopted at the Madrid Summit in the summer of 2022 resorted to all kinds of arguments to convert feminist, LGBT+, environmentalist, and other "liberal" and "progressive" movements into a militaristic state of mind. For example, we advise all feminists and those who identify as LGBT+ to carefully read the following passage: “‘We will continue to advance gender equality as a reflection of our values.’ This oath by NATO is a blatant invitation to feminists.” Now, three years later, at a meeting where all the generals of US armed forces were gathered, Trump and Hegseth stated that there exist certain duties for which women are not fit, that during training superiors should henceforth be allowed to touch the bodies of their subaltern and that generals must act like real warriors.
Returning to our main topic, climate change, we believe it is meaningful to quote the following passage from our article. The date is not BCE, but 2022 AD: “NATO contends that climate change is extremely important. This way it harps on the sensibilities of European and partially North American youth.” Yet we also add: “Calculating the probable opposition of youth to war at least because of its deleterious impact on climate change (simply considering the carbon emission due to warplane or tank sorties would be enough!), which would make a military apparatus such as NATO unpopular, the document says that military activities will henceforth be carried out in ways that would avoid aggravating climate change. Since the aim is not to prevent climate change but to ‘sell’ NATO to the young people who pay great attention to this, no one will bother to talk about how this would be possible. It is just that NATO ‘new look’ is environment-friendly!”
This NATO concept was announced at the very time Greta Thunberg travelled by yacht to a climate change conference in North America to avoid a high carbon footprint. How many millions of dollars were spent on that journey is anybody’s guess. Now, preparing for war means “drill, baby, drill!”
The bourgeoisie has abdicated the duty, the proletariat will have to save the planet
Thus, we see that the bourgeoisie has abandoned everything it has defended for decades, now treating ecological sensitivity and the fight against climate change as mere rhetoric. The bourgeoisie has laid ecology on its deathbed. In other words, it has decided on euthanasia for the ecological struggle and the "green transition". So the task falls on the socialist movement. Like many issues that concern humanity in its entirety, the destruction of nature in general, and climate change in particular, will only be resolved to the extent that they become a dimension of the socialist revolution.
The first conclusion is clear. Those who have proposed cooperation with the forces of the bourgeoisie in this area to the working class, to the forces organised as its vanguard, and to the socialist movement in general, have been proved entirely wrong. It has become abundantly clear that no cooperation with the forces of the bourgeoisie is possible in this matter, just as it is impossible in areas of direct struggle between classes. The disaster itself is a product of capitalism as a historical mode of production, of capital as a socio-economic force, and of the bourgeoisie as a class. To be taken in by the sweet talk used by some of its representatives to draw various strata of the people to their side can only be described as foolish.
Relations with two movements that are widely not regarded as representatives of the bourgeoisie are more complicated. Social democracy, which still clings to the hypocrisy and the audacity of calling itself "Social-Democratic," and especially the Green movement in Europe. We must now give the former its proper name: the "social-capitalist movement”. Marx and Engels rightly stated long ago in The German Ideology (1846) that people should be judged on the basis of their actions, movements, and behaviour, and not on the basis of their ideas about themselves. We must judge the movement that calls itself "social democracy," or even "socialist" in southern Europe, on the basis of real facts, not its own words. This movement is a bourgeois movement somewhat active in the "social" sphere, i.e. class and economic questions. Therefore, it shares the same class character as other bourgeois movements. However, since many social-capitalist parties still have some influence within the working class, different tactics are needed in relation to them from those that are proper for right-wing and centrist bourgeois parties.
The green movement is different. It is more accurate to describe it as a petty-bourgeois movement (despite its shameful reactionary stance, particularly in recent times on the issues of the war in Ukraine and the genocide in Gaza). The ecology movement is a typical representative of the lifestyle of the modern petty bourgeoisie in every respect. The struggle against them must be waged at the grassroots level.
But the issue is less about these parties and movements and more about the programme to be pursued. We explained, in a signed article back in 2023, what kind of programme Marxists should defend on climate change and ecology. The article was titled (in Turkish) "Proposal for a Programme Regarding the Struggle Against Climate Change". This programme outlines urgent demands and transitional demands, ranging from a draconian wealth tax to an international climate tax, from the prioritisation of electrification in Africa's regions still living in the dark to the nationalisation of all major oil companies under workers' control, as well as socialist measures leading towards a workers' state, such as the nationalisation and consolidation of banks into a single state bank. That article states that a programme to resolve the climate change catastrophe can only succeed under socialism, and, moreover, by ensuring equality among the peoples and nations of the world. The fact that the bourgeoisie has now decided to abdicate its programme on this question, promoted under the flashy name of the "green transition," has, in a matter of a couple of years, fully validated our approach in that article.