[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
'COPs Are About the Public vs. Politicians and Their Corporate Interests': Janine Jackson ([link removed])


Janine Jackson interviewed the Center for Biological Diversity's Jean Su about challenging COP30 narratives for the November 28, 2025, episode ([link removed]) of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

[link removed]


NYT: Oil Producers, but Maybe Not the Planet, Get a Win as Climate Talks End

New York Times (11/22/25 ([link removed]) )

Janine Jackson: The decision ([link removed]) coming out of COP30, the climate conference ([link removed]) held this year in Belem in northern Brazil, didn't mention the words “fossil fuels,” much less demand a necessary reduction in their use. The Associated Press dryly notes ([link removed]) that this fell far short of many delegates' expectations.

But the general vibe seems to be that no one actually expected an agreement that would actually keep warming to the agreed-upon 1.5° Celsius, especially not at a gathering swarming ([link removed]) with fossil fuel lobbyists, and the institutional acceptance, if you will, of the industry's role in shaping the policy that needs to dislodge them.

[The New York Times] notes ([link removed]) that

in the end, the talks were stymied by the widening gulf between the world's biggest emitters and the poorest, most vulnerable countries, which are pleading for a more ambitious collective response to climate change.

To which we might also respond, “You don't say.”

What's the difference between acknowledging the conflicts that are driving predictable death and destruction, and using the power of information to challenge and change them? And what else happened at COP30? Were there, are there, other stories that include different voices, and that start where so much corporate coverage ends?

Jean Su is director of the energy justice program, as well as senior attorney, at the Center for Biological Diversity ([link removed]) . She joins us now by phone. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Jean Su.

Jean Su: Great. Thanks so much for having me, Janine.

JJ: I wanted to start by asking about what the COPs are intended to do. I guess my question is, before we move on to other things, what was the point of signing the Paris Agreement ([link removed]) if there was no accountability apparatus built into it? Have the goals of that original conference shifted, or have they just been ignored, or was the framework flawed to begin with?
The Week: Tuvalu is being lost to climate change. Other countries will likely follow.

The Week (7/31/25 ([link removed]) )

JS: These are all deep existential questions that I ask every single year, so this is fantastic. But, you know, we've had these Conferences of the Parties for now 30 years. This is COP30. And the thrust behind it was originally a thrust from scientists and governments that were recognizing that human-caused climate change, including the combustion of fossil fuels, was driving a desperate crisis that is unfolding in front of us right now with deadly storms, wildfires, drought, famine and, eventually, civil conflict.

So the Paris Agreement was signed 10 years ago, and that was a big attempt to get us more on track in terms of a certain goal. So scientists had come to the point where they could say 1.5° of warming in this world would lead to catastrophic results ([link removed]) , especially for the Global South ([link removed]) and small island nation states ([link removed]) like Kiribati and Tuvalu, whose very existence would be completely annihilated because of warming and rising sea levels.

So scientists and governments agreed that they would attempt to limit warming by 1.5° Celsius. And so that is a North Star, if you will. And then in the agreement, they agreed to several things, and most people, if you're living in any type of nation state, you would think that these are all really weak requirements, which is true, they are, but they were the only thing that nation states could agree to. And some of those include an update every five years ([link removed] does it work?,the impacts of rising temperatures.) , a goal for different nation states to say, “This is how much we are going to be cutting our carbon emissions in order to try to meet that collective goal of limiting warming to 1.5°.”

So with all of that, we are 10 years out from Paris. And the very upsetting thing coming into this COP was that at the beginning of this COP, only 60% of nation states had actually turned in their climate targets. So originally we had 100% participation in the first few years after the Paris Agreement, and now we're only having 60% participation, of merely saying what your goals are and this is how much you want to cut. So it's a transparency mechanism. It's supposed to keep nation states on track, because they have to report back to everybody. And even then, 40% of nation states didn't even want to do it, and couldn't even do it. So I think we're in a tough spot.
Grist: The Paris climate agreement won’t call for keeping fossil fuels in the ground

Grist (12/9/15 ([link removed] Paris climate agreement won%E2%80%99t call for keeping fossil fuels in the ground) )

The big push, though, that has occurred in the last 10 years is this push on fossil fuels. So in the Paris Agreement, there is absolutely no mention of fossil fuels ([link removed] thanks its sponsors.,that are driving global warming.) . There is only one mention of renewable energy. That is a really stark reality for the global agreement that's supposed to be addressing the climate emergency.

And so we, and my organization in particular, has pushed on that fossil fuel agenda ([link removed]) for several years. And actually, two years ago, eight years after the Paris Agreement, in Dubai, we finally won a landmark decision ([link removed]) there, which uttered the words "fossil fuels." And it said that nation states would transition away from fossil fuels in an equitable and fair manner. And that was a huge victory for so many advocates, communities on the ground, the countries that are suffering the most from fossil fuel damage. Those were an incredible win, and a landmark win, two years ago.

But the problem with it--it had several problems. It actually had several loopholes, including allowing for gas as a transitional fuel to still be combusted. But even then, the reality was that you have this nice decision, but how do you actually implement it? So what is the game plan to make this thing operationalized?

And so those are questions about, well, who should go first? Shouldn't it be Global North countries that go first, because they actually have the means to transition off of fossil fuels? And then, meanwhile, how do you help Global South countries through that transition?

So we have been in talks with so many African countries, South American countries, even Brazil this time talked about this conundrum that Global South countries have. And they said, “Look, we do want to phase out of fossil fuels. We are bearing the burden of climate harms, but we are essentially hooked on fossil fuels, because all of our infrastructure ([link removed]) has been built on this, because global producers in the Global North have really shoved fossil fuels into our economy. We need money to actually phase out of fossil fuels. So Global North countries, given their wealth, their historic contribution to the climate emergency, they should help fund our transition off of fossil fuels.”
NYT: Save the Amazon or Drill for Oil? Brazil Says It Can Do Both.

New York Times (11/4/25 ([link removed]) )

And the really heartbreaking part, in certain parts of Africa, is that African countries were saying, “You're not giving us any funding, so we are going to continue to basically extract gas from our lands in order to pay for our renewable energy.” And, very similar, President Lula in Brazil, this time hosting the COP, said ([link removed]) , “We're drilling in the Amazon for oil, because we need money to transition off of fossil fuels to get more renewable energy.” So you have this really horrific reality, where poor countries need to depend on extracting their own fossil fuel resources in order to even buy renewable energy infrastructure, to transition off.

So what this COP was trying to do is say, “Hey, we need a game plan, and we need a game plan where Global North countries can actually fund Global South countries to get this transition on its way.” Anything that lacks that funding is completely empty.

So that is where the standoff occurred at this COP. There was no game plan that was operationalized, because that widening gulf, as you said, between poor countries and wealthy countries was at that chokehold of, “If you, as a rich country, can't give us, as a poor country, funds to help us transition off of fossil fuels, then we're not going agree to an empty statement to transition off of fossil fuels, or some game plan that doesn't have this necessary funding.”

So that's really the heart of what's going on at these negotiations, 10 years from Paris, however you want to judge it. The fact that countries are actively debating how to operationalize getting off of fossil fuels is progress. Is 10 years too slow? Absolutely. Is this year still not operationalizing this agreement a problem? Absolutely. Is the fact that they are talking about it, at the very least acknowledging it, something of progress? Yes, it is. So all of those truths are held together, and it's a tricky issue.
Mongabay: Brazil aims for alternative route to fossil fuel road map after COP30 failure

Mongabay (11/25/25 ([link removed]) )

Now, the really good part about this is that President Lula from Brazil was the one to ring the alarm bells at the beginning of this COP. And he is dedicated to getting this game plan off of fossil fuels actionized in some way. He said ([link removed]) at the beginning of this COP, “This is in Brazil, we are at the doorstep of the Amazon. The Amazon is the global symbol of the harms of the climate emergency. So we need to phase out of fossil fuels, and we need a game plan for that.” The UNFCCC ([link removed]) , through this COP, didn't deliver it. So he said at the end of the COP that he was going to try to actionize it ([link removed]) in some other
ways.

And one of those ways is that a whole other group of countries, led by Colombia and the Netherlands, agreed at this summit to host a summit ([link removed]) in Colombia in April that would actually try to put together a game plan to phase out of fossil fuels. So it's outside of this UN process, but it is a group of countries that are dedicated to getting a handle on fossil fuels. So that is an incredible feat. And the president of Brazil said that he would lean on that process to see what could actually happen outside of this corrupted process with Global North countries, and big oil and gas producers like Saudi Arabia.

JJ: You know, I appreciate that. And I think it's important to understand, “just transition” is two words: It's “transition,” but also “just transition.” And I think folks can think about it, if they haven't, if they think about coal mining in the United States, for example. We want the US to come off of coal, but when you have entire communities and states that are funded, beyond having just a history of doing that, that's the way they survive, and they say, “Hey, you know what? We still would like to keep our livelihood,” well, it can be easy for you from a distance to say, “Oh my God, we have to phase out coal.” Yes, but there needs to be a just transition.

And so, picking up from that, I understand that there was a flotilla of Indigenous groups ([link removed]) and people who came to Belem to call attention to the fact that, as Lula says, the Amazon is not just a decorative backdrop ([link removed]) for a conference, and to call attention to their particular set of issues. And the representative I saw was saying that one of their goals with that flotilla of Indigenous folks was to build solidarity across borders, and structures of solidarity across borders. So we often think of, what does each country need to do? And they were saying that people need to be working together across borders. That's where some hope lies, you think?
Jean Su

Jean Su: "It's the people, it's the citizenry of the world who are going toe to toe with the handful of politicians who are driving disastrous decisions for us."

JS: I have been attending the COPs for 10 years now. The Paris Agreement was my first one. And the most moving part about the COPs, as an observer, a lobbyist and an advocate trying to push countries, is that it's not about country-to-country disputes. At the end of the day, what these COPs are about are the public versus these politicians and their corporate interests. That is the actual conflict, or the face-to-face standoff that's happening.

What is incredible, for this COP in particular, is that we were at the heart of the Amazon, and it was the Indigenous COP. And every day there were Indigenous advocates who were trying to get into the COP, because they were completely banned ([link removed]) from getting in. Of the Indigenous advocates who were allowed to go in, they staged protests inside, protests were outside. And it was really led by Indigenous people who are suffering the most ([link removed]) from the climate emergency and whose homes we were on. We were at the heart of the Amazon, and it is their homes that are being absolutely destroyed by fossil fuel combustion abroad, and oil extraction in real time there.

These are civil society organizations from around the world, communities that are being harmed around the world, are all able to come together in one physical place, and were able to look politicians in the eye and say, “This is totally unacceptable.” You know, it's different from when you are brokering deals in isolated hallways; this is a moment where civil society, communities, actual people who are being harmed by the climate emergency are face to face with people who are literally deciding their fate in many ways. And I think that that's the important part about this COP. It's the public, it's the people, it's the citizenry of the world who are going toe to toe with the handful of politicians who are driving disastrous decisions for us.

The most moving part was--there were several Indigenous protests, but one of them, in particular, was Indigenous women from the Amazon actually staged a protest ([link removed]) ; they weren't allowed to go into the site, and they staged a protest at the door of the COP, basically jamming up anybody's ability to get in. And it lasted for around an hour, and everybody gets so flustered, because the negotiators can't get into their meetings. But it was taking this moment to acknowledge that Indigenous women, I mean, I think the world's wisdom is in their minds about how to take care of Mother Earth, are saying, “Stop, you're killing us, and you are killing our ecosystems. You're killing our species, you're killing us. We have to phase out of fossil fuels.” These are the moments that really are the most important at these conferences.

JJ: When we last spoke ([link removed]) in 2021, you were part of a mobilization in Washington, DC, which was called “People versus Fossil Fuels.” And that still seems like the most useful frame for this conversation.

JS: Yeah. And I'd say “fossil fuels” is another word for rich petro-state countries, including the United States. So it is a handful of countries that are blocking progress for the rest of the world.

JJ: Let me ask you, on that note, and I am going to let you go, but things as they are, it was no surprise that the White House declined to send a delegate. That reflects both their anti-science, “where's the money at” view on climate, but also their disdain for international arrangements that require listening to other countries.

But I wonder what you make of the take ([link removed]) that I saw in the New York Times, which was that

the disappointment of the summit was a result of America's absence. While the United States…has not always been a champion of ambitious climate action, it had consistently succeeded in one thing: demanding that major economies with high greenhouse gas emissions, like China and Saudi Arabia, take on more responsibility. Without the United States, diplomats in Belem acknowledged, that enormous source of pressure was gone.

I wonder how you respond to the notion of the US's major international role on climate policy being "it pushes the bad guys to do better."

JS: The US's presence there is a double-edged sword. Yes, they do press China and Saudi Arabia to agree to things that, certainly, Saudi Arabia would not agree to otherwise. But, at the same time, they limit ambition, as you said. There's a huge limit, because the US has vested fossil fuel interests of their own, and they are supportive of "transitional fuels ([link removed]) ." The US, when we protested and advocated the Biden administration to put a hold on fossil fuels, they completely rejected us.

So the Biden administration and the Trump administration, and all the other administrations before that, have gotten the United States to become the No. 1 producer ([link removed]) and exporter of fracked gas in the world, one of the top crude oil producers ([link removed]) and exporters. That's not just a Trump administration issue. That is a Biden administration issue and everything before that, which means that anybody who's negotiating on behalf of the United States at the State Department knows that that is the ultimate interest of the United States.
Conversation: Three reasons why China wants global green leadership after Cop30 – and two reasons it doesn’t

Conversation (11/28/25 ([link removed]) )

So what this COP showed is, in the absence of a global power whose interests are vested in fossil fuels, in that absence, who is going to take the mantle to do anything on fossil fuels and the climate emergency? And I think this year is a really interesting test case of how that is going to work. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, everybody held back on making particular commitments to fossil fuels. On the other hand, you saw China attempt to step up a bit ([link removed]) in leadership, because of their massive outsourcing of renewable energy.

And then you saw the EU really disappointing a lot of people in a lot of ways. The EU has been a moral compass, is certainly seen as a more moral player than the United States in these talks, but certainly also benefiting from Big Brother US in the back, to protect them from actually making real commitments.

What is not surprising is that the people, the countries whose moral voices really are the North Star in these talks, are Colombia, the small island nation states…. Those are the countries that understand that their own survival, and the world's survival, depends on phasing out fossil fuels. And that's why the real leaders of this COP may not be the most resourced, but they are the ones who are following science. And they are the heroes coming out of this COP.

Colombia, in particular, is going to be taking the mantle of hosting the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away From Fossil Fuels, that's its official title, in April of 2026, along with the Netherlands. Those two countries are rising as super important leaders in this fight. And if they can't get something done in this 200–nation state arena, they are going to be pushing as hard as possible for something to get done outside of it.

And the important part, I think, about the US not being here as well is that it's a double- edged sword, because they are an obstructor to actual movement on phasing out fossil fuels. So what I would urge all nation states to do is use these three years--which I hope at the end of three years will be the end of the Trump administration, and we have a more climate and science-based government coming in in the US--but take these three years, and pass as much binding frameworks as we can, because with the US not there, they can no longer obstruct. And that means that nation states can treat the US as the pariah that it is, and get down some binding frameworks that will, in the end, when the US comes back, bind the US to more ambitious targets, and more ambitious pathways to phasing out fossil fuels, and funding that renewable energy transition for the Global South.

JJ: Very finally, I usually ask people what they'd like to see more or less of in media coverage. I'm thinking another way to put that, on this issue in particular, is what do you see as the difference between the news media we have and the news media we need to move us forward in addressing climate disasters?
Media Matters: Corporate broadcast news covered this year’s COP30 global climate summit for 2 minutes — cable networks covered it for just over 3 hours

Media Matters (11/26/25 ([link removed]) )

JS: First, I think one of the tough parts about this COP is that the media market is very concentrated in the United States, and that's where most of the funding is. They are extremely overwhelmed, because of all the things that the Trump administration is doing. And so the coverage of this, the amount of people they sent to the COP, all of that has diminished significantly ([link removed]) . So we have a battered media market ([link removed]) in the US, and that has just knock-on effects in terms of media around the world.

A lot of the mainstream message is, to their credit, focused on the fossil fuel story, which is a huge change from even five years ago. So I think there is a lot of progress that has been made there. But what I'd like to see more of is, actually, the heroic stories that have come out of this, which are--it doesn't have to be based on the Global North perspective, necessarily. Like, yes, the fossil fuel producers are the evil ones in this, but also let's raise up Colombia, the Netherlands, the small island nation states, these countries that have been steadfast for 30 years in saying that we need to follow science, and we need to phase out of fossil fuels. They should be the heroes of this story, versus just focusing on the anti-heroes.

And on top of that, I think it's the Indigenous stories, it's the stories of, really, the global citizenry around the world. I think, in telling that story of the global citizenry, people should recognize and see themselves in these stories, that this is not some isolated thing that happened in Brazil, that this is actually your own fight, our own fight collectively. And we have to take those fights absolutely back home at a local level, at a state level, and at a national level. That's what actually matters for climate action. And we can make the most progress here on the ground right now. And know that you are not alone, that you are fighting shoulder to shoulder with people around the world who care just the same as you do.

JJ: We've been speaking with Jean Su; she's director of the energy justice program and senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. You can follow their work online at BiologicalDiversity.org ([link removed]) . Jean Su, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

JS: Great. Thanks for having me, Janine.


Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .