Challenging COP30 Priorities: People Come Before Carbon
- December 5, 2025
At the recently concluded Conference of the Parties 30 (COP30) in Brazil, the summit focused on big numbers and ambitious targets for the green transition.
Negotiators approved a plan to raise at least $1.3 trillion every year by 2035 for climate action. The agreement called for a major boost in funding for adaptation and began putting the loss and damage fund from COP28 into full operation. Through the UNEZA Alliance, public utility companies further pledged to invest $66 billion each year in renewable energy (RE) and another $82 billion in transmission and storage systems.
COP30 also rolled out two major initiatives aimed at turning climate promises into real progress. The Global Implementation Accelerator and the Belém Mission to 1.5°C are designed to support countries in fulfilling their national commitments and enhancing their adaptation plans. United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres said these steps mark meaningful progress, noting that the accelerator is meant to close ambition gaps, including a just, orderly, and equitable shift away from fossil fuels.
The conference’s final text underscored that the Paris Agreement is delivering results but needs to “go further and faster,” placing renewed emphasis on the importance of strong international cooperation on climate action.
(Also read: Renewables Boom Leaves Scotland’s Oil Workers Behind)
Urgent human issues overlooked?
While over $1 trillion will be spent annually on climate measures over the next decade, only a fraction—$300 million from 35 philanthropic organizations—is directed toward managing climate-related health threats.
This was the point Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates emphasized in his message to COP30 ahead of the summit. He stressed that the real priority should be improving lives, not just tracking emissions or temperature goals. While climate change affects the poor most, he noted that “the biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been.”
With his over two decades of studying climate change and investing billions in RE innovation, Gates said COP30 comes at a moment when every dollar for the world’s poorest must deliver maximum value. The pool of money available to help them—which was already less than 1 percent of rich countries’ budgets at its highest level—is shrinking as rich countries cut their aid budgets and low-income countries are burdened by debt,” he asserted. “We have to think rigorously and numerically about how to put the time and money we do have to the best use.”
Along the same vein, Copenhagen Consensus President Bjorn Lomborg argued that many climate policies cost far more than the gains they deliver. He explained that fully carrying out the Paris Agreement in 2030 could require $819 to $1,890 billion a year, yet would only cut emissions by about 1% of what is needed to stay on track for 1.5°C.
According to Lomborg, billions of people in developing countries face more urgent threats than long-term temperature targets. He argued that the real task for policymakers is to decide how limited resources can do the greatest good for the most people. “Smart investments in health, nutrition, and education could every year save over 4 million people, while also building growth and resilience for the future,” he wrote. “In much of the world, parents are not kept awake by concerns about achieving a 0.1°C temperature reduction in a century. They worry whether their children will survive a bout of malaria or get a decent education.”
Lomborg also spoke against claims that the climate crisis is the single greatest threat to developing nations, contesting that this view ignores priorities on the ground. Surveys across dozens of African countries showed climate concerns ranking far below basic needs like education, jobs, health care, and infrastructure. “Green campaigners insist that emissions cuts must come first for the poor — when what they really need are jobs, food, medicine, and an escape from poverty,” he stated.
Recently, the US urged the World Bank to shift focus from climate projects back to poverty reduction. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called for cutting 45% of funding spent on climate initiatives and redirecting it toward expanding affordable energy access, fighting poverty, and driving economic growth.
Questioning RE as the path to prosperity
The COP30 underscored how climate action can drive economic growth, create jobs, and expand energy access. UN climate chief Simon Stiell noted that investments in RE now outpace fossil fuels by two to one, “a political and market signal that cannot be ignored.”
Meanwhile, the Rockefeller Foundation claims RE provides the “most cost-effective and rapid route to prosperity”—a claim Lomborg called “fantasy.” He maintained that reliable power from solar and wind requires costly backup systems, pushing up electricity prices. “This is why rich countries, despite their green rhetoric, still get more than three-quarters of their energy from fossil fuels,” declared Lomborg.
The UK illustrates the high cost of a rushed energy transition. Once one of Europe’s cheapest electricity markets, prices have surged, leaving businesses paying at least 50% more than their continental rivals. Economist Dieter Helm said the rapid shift to RE has created massive inefficiencies, requiring double the generation and grid capacity, extensive storage, and heavy imports. “Even by 2030, on the government’s trajectory, 35GW of gas is needed to run 5% of the time,” he wrote. “How could any rational, objective person conclude that this is cheap?”
This 2025, UK household energy debt hit an eight-year high, rising nearly 30% to £780 million (US$1.04 billion), with the average home owing over £220 (US$293) this winter. Leading energy firms warned that bills could climb further as green levies increase and urged the government to review net-zero funding. Much of the cost is passed directly onto consumers, covering grid upgrades, nuclear power, and emerging technologies like green hydrogen and carbon capture.
The EY Item Club, an independent economic forecaster, warned that Britain’s manufacturing sector could see three straight years of job losses as high energy costs weigh on operations, with factory output expected to drop 0.6% this year.
With evidence that RE can hinder economic growth in some regions, Lomborg has observed a return to pragmatic thinking. Democrat Senator Chris Coons of Delaware declared that climate is “not a top three issue right now”. Canada is fast-tracking LNG projects while aiming to become an energy leader. “Even the green-leaning British and German governments are now talking about the need to inject some economics into climate and energy policy,” he wrote.
COP 30’s final document affirms that the worldwide transition to low-emission, climate-resilient development is “irreversible and the trend of the future.” However, when Germany, a leader in global RE adoption, found its wind and hydropower output fall in early 2025, the country relied on coal and imported electricity to maintain supply. This pushed coal use up 18% and gas generation nearly 14%, giving fossil fuels their largest share of the energy mix since 2018, highlighting that when intermittent sources falter, traditional fuels remain the reliable backbone.
Think tank Ember stated that wealthier economies, including the US and EU nations, have recently increased their dependence on fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) also confirmed that coal remained the world’s leading source of electricity in 2024, a status it has held for over fifty years.
(Also read: UK Policies Deepen Its Energy Trilemma)
Addressing climate change through adaptation and innovation
Lomborg warned that the future costs of climate change are often overstated because adaptation is overlooked. He highlighted coastal flooding as an example, noting that public estimates frequently project damages in the tens of trillions annually—far above what more realistic forecasts show when adaptive measures are considered.
“Yet, because it ignores adaptation, this description exaggerates the problem by up to two thousand times,” Lomborg explained. “The misleading narrative is, unfortunately, often encouraged by research that routinely neglects adaptation or treats it as a casual add-on.”
Meanwhile, Gates argued that strategic investment in affordable, zero-carbon technologies over the next decade could scale up rapidly, cutting emissions and narrowing the gap between wealthy and poorer nations.
He pointed to shifting energy forecasts as evidence of progress. Just ten years ago, the IEA projected global carbon emissions would reach 50 billion tons annually by 2040. Today, that forecast has dropped to 30 billion tons, with 2050 projections expected to fall even further.
With ongoing innovation capable of cutting emissions more effectively than expensive policies, Gates stated that climate action should prioritize interventions with the greatest impact on human welfare. “Development doesn’t depend on helping people adapt to a warmer climate– development is adaptation,” he stressed.
Why the PH should invest in people
For the Philippines, massive investments in grids and RE infrastructure risk stretching an already burdened economy. Many families still face basic economic and social challenges. As of recent government data, nearly 3 million households remain without electricity.
That gap matters because, as Dr. Eduardo Araral of the National University of Singapore warned, in the country’s lower-income households, Filipinos spend 10 to 40% of their income on energy. Shifting rapidly to expensive RE infrastructure risks raising living costs for those already most vulnerable — undermining rather than improving their welfare.
China remains the largest greenhouse gas emitter globally, contributing 29.2% of total emissions, while Indonesia ranks seventh with 2.3%. In contrast, the Philippines accounts for only 0.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is that the Philippines contributes only a very small fraction of the world’s total emissions, so spending scarce public resources on aggressive mitigation strategies has minimal effect on the trajectory of global climate change.
For a nation like the Philippines, which is consistently ranked among the most climate-vulnerable countries, the question is not whether emissions should be reduced but how best to protect the population. Investments in human welfare, energy access, and climate resilience deliver real and tangible benefits. They provide electricity to families that currently live without it, strengthen communities against typhoons and flooding, and improve livelihoods.
Furthermore, spending on achieving net-zero may satisfy international pressure or NGO advocacy, but it does not improve the immediate lives of Filipinos. There are far more pressing human development priorities, from basic energy access to resilient infrastructure, that directly safeguard lives and livelihoods.
For the Philippines, a people-first approach that emphasizes adaptation, resilience, and socio-economic well-being is not only logical but also morally imperative, producing outcomes that matter here and now rather than abstract global targets that bring little local benefit.
Sources:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/16/green-levies-are-to-blame-for-rising-energy-bills
https://theweek.com/tech/why-britains-electricity-bills-are-some-of-the-highest-in-the-world
https://news.stv.tv/politics/energy-debt-hits-eight-year-high-ahead-of-winter
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/monthly-electricity-statistics
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2rz08en2po
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1164164
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2144174/adb-under-fire-for-false-solutions-in-energy-policy-review
