Why Presence – And Absence – Was Critical AT COP30

At COP30 in Belém, Brazil, negotiations focused on how to rein in climate change and protect natural resources. Like previous COPs, the formal agenda was dedicated to finance, emission reductions, adaptation and accountability. Yet this year, the attendee list itself became a barometer of global priorities – and a storyline of its own.

Who was in attendance – and why it matters
This year, over 190 countries registered a delegation for COP30. Brazil, hosting its first ever COP, leveraged its role as host to put the Amazon front and centre in the global climate conversation. European nations were also highly visible – with senior leaders such as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen present – signalling that Europe takes COP30 and the future of climate negotiations seriously.

China emerged as another major player at COP30, demonstrating its commitments to renewable energy and technology, especially in the form of EVs. Smaller and developing countries made their voices heard, looking to ensure that adaptation finance, loss and damage, and equity remain core negotiation threads.

In terms of the private sector, the fossil fuel industry had a massive presence this year, with over 1,600 lobbyists associated with oil, gas and coal taking part.

Who wasn’t there – and why this is just as important
US federal leadership was notably absent at COP30, which is not surprising given the Trump administration’s views on climate change and ensuring American energy independence (see Verdantix Strategic Focus: ESG & Sustainability In The US). While US state and local officials, including California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, were present, the lack of federal representation weakens the US’s voice at pivotal discussions.

Government presence is only one of the areas where US influence is retreating. Many private organizations that previously used COP as a platform for decarbonization and commitments, such as Edison Energy and Honeywell, are sitting out or are on the sidelines. Concerns range from political backlash at home to questions about the value of appearing on the global climate stage.

This absence creates a vacuum that other nations and private firms can fill, shaping the agenda and negotiations in ways that may not align with US priorities. Without representation, there are fewer opportunities for the US to showcase technological leadership and influence rules around the energy transition.

The cost of sitting out
COP30 underscores a growing divide between firms treating climate as a core strategic priority and those retreating to the sidelines. Countries and organizations engaged in the negotiations can shape emerging rules and influence global market standards for decarbonization. In contrast, those absent from the discussions risk ceding influence over the frameworks and policies that will govern the energy transition, carbon accounting and sustainability reporting for years to come. By staying away, leaders miss the opportunity to align strategy with the direction of global climate policy, leaving competitors and more proactive governments to set the pace and terms of the transition.