COP30: The Fine Line Between Optimism and Practicality
This year’s COP30 conference – the first ever to be held in the Amazon rainforest – took place just as the world crossed the 1.5°C warming threshold and countries were expected to submit stronger climate plans for the next decade under the Paris Agreement.
It concluded without major political breakthroughs but with a clear shift toward strengthening the systems that govern global climate action.
We caught up with Dr. Tzipi Iser Itsiq, head of the Environment and Climate Department at Lipa Meir & Co., a widely renowned lawyer and lecturer, well versed in all aspects of environmental protection, as well as Dr. Ruth Dagan, head of the Environment and Climate Change Practice at Herzog, a leading adviser to the UNFCCC mechanism and a board member of Verra, which sets the world’s leading standards for climate action and sustainable development.
Both women have been at the heart of this field for many years.
Progress despite political limitations
COP30 placed far greater emphasis on integrity, transparency, and implementation, reflecting a maturing climate regime even as political ambition remained constrained. Expectations for the conference were low – and, in many cases, were justfied.
Dr. Tzipi Itsiq of Lipa Meir & Co.: “In recent years, these COP meetings have been heavily influenced by pressure from oil and gas interests, and the outcomes of COP30 reflected that reality clearly.” Yet she points out that despite political limitations, progress continues elsewhere: “Many leading economic and financial actors remain firmly committed to the goal of achieving true net-zero carbon pathways, and their momentum continues to drive meaningful progress despite political constraints.”
“A decisive move from high-level design to operational oversight, integrity, and system-building”
A defining change at COP30 was the recalibration of carbon-market work. Lipa’s Dr. Itsiq underscores this shift directly: “The key shift this year was in the overall focus: COP30 signaled a shift from expanding carbon-market mechanisms to strengthening integrity, oversight, and transparency.” Instead of reopening Article 6 rules, she explains that “countries focused on safeguarding credit quality and tightening supervision of bilateral trading.”
Dr. Ruth Dagan, head of Herzog Fox & Neeman’s Climate & Environmental Law Department, describes the technical outcomes in detail. “Under Article 6.2, countries received feedback on their first round of initial reports, and the UN review teams found inconsistencies in every trade reviewed so far, prompting the COP to call for clearer, more transparent reporting and better guidance from technical reviewers.”
She adds that “under Article 6.4, parties reaffirmed the Supervisory Body’s independence despite pressure to weaken rules on baselines and non-permanence, extended the CDM-transition deadline by six months to June 2026, and confirmed the full shutdown of the CDM by end-2026.” For Dagan, “this represents a decisive move from high-level design to operational oversight, integrity, and system-building.”
COP30 also pushed market alignment beyond the negotiation halls. Dr. Dagan notes that “Brazil launched the Open Coalition on Carbon Markets, aiming to link carbon systems across major jurisdictions (including the EU, UK, China, Canada, Mexico, Chile and others) and promote interoperability.” A parallel effort advanced as well: “The Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, co-chaired by Singapore, the UK and Kenya, released a full set of principles to support high-integrity corporate use of carbon credits.”
Together, these developments indicate that COP30 placed the credibility of carbon markets at the center of its agenda.
Climate finance: from concept to operational structure
Lipa’s Dr. Itsiq notes that COP30 attempted to translate last year’s NCQG into practice “by pushing for much larger adaptation funding, stronger support for vulnerable communities, and significant pledges for tropical forests and Amazon conservation.”
However, she cautions that “the lack of agreement on a clear fossil-fuel and deforestation pathway exposed the gap between financial architecture and political ambition.”
Dr. Dagan similarly observes that financing discussions were more focused and structured this year. “On climate finance, COP30 went further than COP29 by operationalizing the new USD 300bn-per-year goal and starting to build the architecture around it.” She explains that “the ‘global mutirão’ finance package established a two-year work programme on Paris Agreement Article 9, created a mechanism to track scaling finance toward USD 1.3 trillion annually by 2035, and embedded the expectation that the majority of these funds will come from private and blended finance.”
Rising expectations, intensifying pressure for energy companies
According to Dr. Itsiq, “the main takeaway is that the direction is unchanged, but expectations for real implementation have risen sharply.” She highlights that three pressures intensified at COP30: “more capital directed toward renewables, grids, and low-carbon industry; growing scrutiny of corporate reliance on carbon credits; and increased regulatory focus on methane and nature impacts.”
“For energy companies, this means reassessing investments, treating offsets as supplementary-not central-to transition plans, and embedding methane reduction and biodiversity safeguards into core business strategy.”
Regulatory trends emerging from COP30
Dr. Itsiq identifies four major regulatory developments likely to shape the coming years. She expects “mandatory climate disclosures and transition plans” aligned with ISSB standards, a wave of “stricter methane performance standards,” “closer integration of carbon markets into national policy,” and “nature and land-use due diligence requirements” affecting permitting, financing, and supply chains.
A maturing climate system with political gaps
COP30 ultimately demonstrated that while political ambition remains uneven, the global climate framework is striving to become more disciplined, transparent, and implementation-oriented.
The summit did not resolve the most contentious questions around fossil fuels or deforestation, but it did reinforce the systems that will increasingly try to determine which commitments are credible and which are not.
