Big Promises And Big Disappointments With Country Climate Promises In

Leo Migdal

-Dec 3, 2025, 10:48 AM

big promises and big disappointments with country climate promises in

It’s been an action-packed first few days in Baku. As of Wednesday morning, three countries—Brazil, the UAE, and the UK—have all released parts or all of their new nationally-determined contributions, or NDCs, months ahead of the February 2025 deadline. Experts have welcomed the leadership these countries have shown by announcing early NDCs, and praise the ambitious targets set by the UK government. But experts also say that two of these new plans—from Brazil and the UAE, two of the three Troika members tasked with leading COP29 to success—are not aligned with Paris targets, and do not... Nationally-determined contributions, or NDCs, are commitments made by countries under the Paris Agreement to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change impacts. Each country determines its own contribution based on its national circumstances and capabilities.

Experts say that appropriately aggressive NDCs must pass a series of thresholds, including commitments to phase out fossil fuels and scaling up commitments for climate finance. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the first Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement, emissions cuts of 60% by 2035 compared to 2019 are recommended in these new NDCs. But thus far, only the UK goes above and beyond this benchmark, while Brazil and the UAE’s plans are lacking the aggressive leadership promised by the Troika. “We had a catastrophic year with events we’ve never seen before, but what people didn’t understand is that this is the new normal,” Prof Niklas Höhne, NewClimate Institute, a Climate Action Tracker partner, said. “National governments have set net-zero targets and acknowledged the need to decarbonize, but what’s missing is short-term action. That’s why new NDCs for 2035 are so important.

If we look at all the NDCs on the table so far, GHGs will remain stable until 2035, and if we stay on this course, we will emit twice as much as what is... The 2025 UN climate talks wrapped on Saturday, Nov. 22 after negotiations pushed into overtime. The resulting decision secured some important wins, both inside and outside the negotiations. But it omitted some of the big-ticket items many hoped to see. With efforts to halt temperature rise severely off track and climate disasters becoming ever-more destructive, the summit (COP30) aimed to establish clear pathways to deliver past pledges and put the world on a safer...

A key question was how countries would address lagging ambition in their new climate commitments (NDCs). Hopes that countries would commit to roadmaps to end fossil fuel use and halt deforestation were ultimately dashed after opposition from petrostates. The final decision only included new voluntary initiatives to accelerate national climate action, though the Brazilian Presidency intends to move forward with fossil fuel and deforestation roadmaps outside of the formal COP talks. Building resilience to climate impacts took center stage, with COP30 securing a new target to triple finance for climate adaptation. The COP also laid out practical solutions to increase finance for the low-carbon transition. In an era of trade wars and tariffs, negotiators also agreed for the first time to hold discussions on how trade policies can help — or hinder — climate action.

Against the backdrop of the Amazon, nature also saw advances, including a new fund for tropical forest conservation. Indigenous Peoples and other local communities were recognized like never before. And outside the formal negotiations, the summit saw a raft of new pledges and action plans from cities, states, countries and the private sector. It is clear that we are moving from negotiations to implementation, and from wrangling over what to do to how to do it. These victories matter. It shows that international cooperation can still deliver, despite deepening divides on climate action and a difficult geopolitical context.

Climate change pledges sound impressive when world leaders gather on grand stages, but the reality behind closed doors is often far less inspiring. Despite high-profile commitments, the world remains on track for a temperature rise of 2.7 degrees Celsius by century’s end, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. This is a far cry from the 1.5-degree goal set in the Paris Agreement—a target scientists say is essential to avoid catastrophic consequences. Experts have repeatedly warned that ambitious promises alone won’t prevent rising seas and deadly heatwaves unless governments back them up with urgent, concrete steps. Yet, many countries continue to approve new fossil fuel infrastructure and delay the hard decisions. The sense of urgency in official speeches rarely matches the pace of real change on the ground.

“We’re running out of time, and the gap between rhetoric and reality is alarming,” said one climate scientist in a recent interview. Big companies love to talk about their climate goals, but are these promises anything more than clever PR? In 2024, just 23% of Fortune 500 companies had set science-based targets in line with the latest climate research, according to the Carbon Disclosure Project. This means the majority of corporations making net-zero pledges still haven’t put their money where their mouth is. Some companies tout “carbon neutral” products or “climate positive” business models, but when you look closer, the details can be fuzzy or even misleading. Greenwashing—where companies exaggerate or misrepresent their sustainability actions—remains a stubborn problem.

Without clear standards and transparent reporting, it’s almost impossible for consumers and investors to know who’s serious and who’s just making noise. As one analyst put it, “Real climate leadership means accountability, not just catchy slogans.” Fossil fuels are the elephant in the climate room, and nobody seems eager to show them the door. Even as leaders promise emissions cuts, countries like the United States and China are actually increasing oil and gas production. The International Energy Agency reported that global fossil fuel output is set to rise by 5% in 2025, directly contradicting the need for a steady decline. New drilling projects, expanded pipelines, and ongoing subsidies reveal how deep the world’s addiction to fossil fuels really runs.

Experts warn that unless governments start phasing out fossil fuel investments and subsidies, climate targets will remain out of reach. The contradiction is striking: on one hand, bold climate speeches; on the other, a business-as-usual approach that locks in decades more carbon emissions. It’s a classic case of talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Helping developing nations fight climate change was supposed to be a cornerstone of international cooperation. Wealthier countries pledged to deliver $100 billion each year for climate adaptation and mitigation in the Global South. However, as of 2024, only $83 billion had actually been mobilized, leaving a gaping shortfall.

This broken promise undermines trust and makes it harder for vulnerable countries to prepare for disasters, invest in clean energy, or protect their citizens. The lack of adequate climate finance means poorer nations are often left to face floods, droughts, and rising seas without the resources they were promised. Climate finance experts argue that until this gap is closed, global climate action will remain deeply unequal. One negotiator from a developing country recently said, “We can’t build resilience on empty promises.” Biodiversity is disappearing at a shocking rate, and climate promises to protect nature are failing to keep pace. The World Wildlife Fund reports that global wildlife populations have declined by an average of 68% since 1970—a crisis driven by habitat loss, pollution, and warming temperatures.

While leaders have committed to protecting 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030, progress has been painfully slow. Conservationists warn that without immediate action, many species face extinction and entire ecosystems could collapse. This loss isn’t just about animals or plants; it undermines the natural systems that provide food, water, and stability for people too. The link between climate and biodiversity is clear, but the world’s response remains fragmented and insufficient. Lecturer in International Development, UCL UCL Professor of Earth System Science and UNU Lead for Climate, Health and Security, UCL

Professor of Infrastructure Engineering and International Development, UCL Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Sustainable Aviation and Aeronautics. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF,... He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, John Templeton Foundation, The Nand & Jeet Khemka Foundation, Quadrature...

Professor Priti Parikh is the Director of UCL's Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction and Vice Dean International for Bartlett Faculty of Built Environment. She is a Fellow and Trustee for Institution of Civil Engineers. Research funding sources include UKRI, Royal Academy of Engineering, Water Aid, British Academy, Bboxx Ltd, UCL, Royal Society and British Council. Her consultancy has received funding from AECOM, Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership, Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor, UNHABITAT, Arup, ITAD and GTZ An iceberg in Ilulissat, Greenland. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting rapidly, and that melt will accelerate as the Earth heats up.

Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption World leaders are heading into the final days of COP30, the United Nations climate meeting in Brazil. They are trying to agree on how to curb global warming and pay for the costs of an increasingly hotter planet. For the past eight years, one of the primary objectives of the annual negotiations has been to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to the temperatures in the late 1800s. That temperature goal was established after a landmark international scientific report laid out the catastrophic effects of exceeding that amount of warming. But that goal is no longer plausible, scientists say.

Humanity has not cut planet-warming pollution quickly enough, and the planet will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, likely in the next decade, according to a recent United Nations report. However, all is not lost. If countries can cut overall greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2035, scientists say the planet would quickly return to lower levels of warming. As global greenhouse emissions continue to rise, and climate change wreaks more havoc upon the people and places least responsible for the problem, rich polluting countries are now three years overdue on their promise... To make matters worse, says Oxfam, the actual support they provide is much less than reported numbers suggest, and is coming mostly as debt that has to be repaid. Oxfam’s ‘Climate Finance Shadow Report 2023’ published today shows that while donors claim to have mobilized $83.3 billion in 2020, the real value of their spending was —at most— $24.5 billion.

The $83.3 billion claim is an overestimate because it includes projects where the climate objective has been overstated or as loans cited at their face value. By providing loans rather than grants, these funds are even potentially harming rather than helping local communities, as they add to the debt burdens of already heavily indebted countries —even more so in this... Donor countries are repurposing up to one-third of official aid contributions as climate finance rather than putting forward new and additional money, while more than half of all climate finance going to the world’s... At COP29, under the Paris Agreement, Parties agreed on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance. The new goal aims to mobilize US$300 billion annually by 2035 from developed countries to support climate action in developing countries. But while building on the previous goal of $100 billion per year by 2020 (which was extended to 2025), this new target still falls far short of the needs of developing countries to respond...

It is essential that the world's poorest and most vulnerable populations such as the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) receive support in a fair and equitable manner. The LDCs, along with the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), staged a walkout during the NCQG negotiations at COP29 to draw attention to the climate crisis affecting millions in highly vulnerable countries. This action was to demonstrate that the NCQG negotiations did not meet their expectations. It was crucial to elevate the very real and critical purpose of such talks: protecting and sustaining lives and livelihoods for these nations. Before the decision, countries participated in the NCQG discussions for three years. Yet in Baku, developing countries expressed significant dissatisfaction with both the process and outcome of the two week conference.

Big Promises And Big Disappointments With Country Climate Promises In

People Also Search

It’s Been An Action-packed First Few Days In Baku. As

Experts Say That Appropriately Aggressive NDCs Must Pass A Series

If We Look At All The NDCs On The Table

A Key Question Was How Countries Would Address Lagging Ambition

Against The Backdrop Of The Amazon, Nature Also Saw Advances,