當地時間11月22日,第30次聯合國氣候變化大會(COP30)在巴西貝倫落幕。閉幕式上,COP30主席宣佈通過新的氣候行動總體協議,呼籲各國加速推進氣候行動。但令人關注的是,最終文字並未出現任何明確提及“化石燃料”的措辭,也未就煤、石油和天然氣的淘汰或減量路徑形成共識。在大會談判期間,歐盟曾與80多個國家共同推動將“化石燃料淘汰路線圖”寫入協議,但遭到沙烏地阿拉伯、俄羅斯等主要產油國的反對。經過多輪談判,歐盟最終選擇不阻撓協議通過,但明確表示不同意最終文字的內容。大會的氣氛也因關鍵參與者的缺席而顯得格外複雜。儘管本屆COP30吸引了190余國代表參會,但美國官方代表團的再度缺席。在峰會尾聲,美國政府更是宣佈美國沿海新區供油氣鑽探的新計畫。針對當前國際氣候合作的困境,聯合國氣候負責人 Simon Stiell表示氣候懷疑論、內部分歧與地緣政治緊張已對國際合作造成嚴重衝擊。在IPP榮譽教授、聯合國教科文組織國際創意和可持續發展中心顧問理事梅裡·馬達沙希(Mehri Madarshahi)看來,COP30呈現出明顯的“進退交織”。一方面,部分融資與適應領域保持了多邊合作的框架;另一方面,在最關鍵的化石燃料議題上卻因產油國合力抵制而難有突破。美國首次缺席造成談判現場的領導真空,而適應融資的擴張某種程度上也是以削弱減排力度為代價。最終成果雖有亮點,卻遠未達到應對氣候緊迫性的行動速度。這一切共同指向一個關鍵問題:在地緣政治對立和發展道路分化加速的背景下,COP機制是否仍能維持其原有的效能?答案將深刻影響未來全球氣候治理的走向。引言Introduction貝倫舉行的COP30落幕後,國際社會迎來了一個必須重新審視的時刻。此前輿論多將焦點放在談判過程本身。實際上,峰會最終的成果及其背後的政治選擇,更值得系統性地分析。The conclusion of COP30 in Belém has prompted a moment of necessary reflection. While earlier analyses addressed the negotiations themselves, the final outcomes of the summit and the political choices embedded within them, warrant a more comprehensive examination.COP30召開之際,全球正面臨愈發嚴峻的氣候衝擊、加速碎片化的地緣政治環境,以及國際社會對化石能源、氣候融資和韌性建設採取更果斷行動的強烈期待。距離2030年可持續發展目標僅剩五年,這場峰會因此被普遍視為一場“壓力測試”——國際社會是否能夠真正把先前的承諾轉化為可執行的方案和路徑?COP30 unfolded amid intensifying climate impacts, rising geopolitical fragmentation, and heightened expectations for decisive action on fossil fuels, climate finance, and resilience. Positioned at a critical juncture, just five years before the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal deadline, the summit was widely viewed as a test of whether the international community could convert prior commitments into actionable pathways.然而,COP30並不僅僅為年度氣候外交畫上一個句號;它更呈現出一幅關於全球氣候治理走向、侷限與動態變化的圖景。儘管大會在氣候適應(Adaptation)、健康韌性 (health resilience)和森林融資(forest finance)等領域取得了進展,但最終協議卻刻意避開了化石燃料這一全球排放的核心問題。“有所突破”與“刻意迴避”並存的結構性矛盾,將深刻影響未來的氣候合作。Yet COP30 did not merely close a chapter in annual climate diplomacy; it offered a revealing snapshot of the direction, limitations, and evolving dynamics of global climate governance. Although governments celebrated progress on adaptation, health resilience, and forest finance, the final agreement notably avoided direct reference to fossil fuels, the core driver of global emissions. This interlinkage of innovation and omission illustrates the structural tensions that will shape the future of climate cooperation.在地緣政治持續碎片化的背景下,COP30也提出了一個更加迫切的問題:氣候大會是否仍具備推動體系性脫碳的能力,抑或正在轉變為只能“管理”而無法真正化解危機的場合?In an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape, COP30 raised an urgent question: Are COP negotiations still capable of driving systemic decarbonization, or are they becoming forums that manage rather than resolve the climate crisis?本文將分析貝倫成果的深層影響,梳理COP30的成就與不足,並探討其可能為下一階段氣候外交留下了怎樣的“遺產”。This article analyses the implications of the Belém outcome, assessing what COP30 achieved, where it fell short, and what its legacy may signal for the next phase of climate diplomacy.作為《聯合國氣候變化框架公約》體系關鍵節點的COP30COP30 as a Critical Moment in the UNFCCC Regime在貝倫舉行的COP30肩負著兩大使命:一是推動各國進一步提升減排雄心,二是重建外界對多邊氣候治理的信心。在COP28僅給出“逐步遠離化石燃料”的模糊表述之後,外界期待COP30能夠拿出一份更具操作性的路線圖——包含明確的時間表、重點行業基準以及關鍵節點,從而縮小全球減排的缺口。Hosted in Belém , a symbolic gateway to the Amazon , COP30 carried the dual mandate of accelerating mitigation ambition and restoring confidence in multilateral environmental governance. After COP28’s ambiguous commitment to “transition away from fossil fuels,” Parties hoped COP30 would deliver a concrete roadmap with timelines, sectoral benchmarks, and milestones to close the emissions gap.各方對本屆大會寄予厚望,希望其能夠重新確認“貝倫1.5°C目標”,在2030年前加快重點部門減排,提出可信的淨零路徑,並推出“巴庫至貝倫1.3兆美元路線圖”(COP29主席國亞塞拜然與COP30主席國巴西聯合推出的一份氣候融資路線圖。核心目標是到2035年,每年為開發中國家動員至少1.3兆美元的氣候資金)相匹配的融資框架。相關規劃旨在整合多元資金來源,通過新的融資目標優先支援適應工作,並設定可量化的指標以跟蹤整體進展。Expectations were high: a renewed commitment to the 1.5°C goal, accelerated sector-specific mitigation strategies before 2030, a credible pathway to net-zero, and an integrated finance framework aligned with the proposed Baku–Belém Roadmap to US$1.3 Trillion. The roadmap sought to integrate different finance sources, prioritize adaptation through a new finance goal, and introduce measurable indicators for monitoring progress.然而,真正進入談判階段後,這些期待迅速被各方的結構性分歧所取代。由沙烏地阿拉伯、阿拉伯國家集團、俄羅斯及若干立場相近的開發中國家組成的反對陣營,在削弱乃至稀釋最終文字方面發揮了關鍵作用。他們的表態反映出一個長期存在的矛盾:減排雄心、國際公平與各自經濟利益之間,始終存在難以調和的結構性張力。In practice, however, negotiations exposed profound divisions. A coalition of opposition actors, led by Saudi Arabia, the Arab Group, Russia, and several like-minded developing countries played a decisive role in moderating and ultimately weakening the outcome text. Their interventions reveal longstanding tensions between mitigation ambition, equity, and national economic interests.巴西曾努力推動一份兼具平衡和前瞻性的議程,但整個會議仍深受地緣政治碎片化與化石燃料利益固化的制約。儘管相關國家將立場包裝為“公平”或“技術中立”,但產油國的集體態度實際上對任何具有約束力的化石燃料承諾形成了事實性否決。最終協議的文字只能保留“推動能源系統轉型”和“擴大可再生能源”的措辭,而對“逐步淘汰化石燃料”的明確表述則被完全刪除。Brazil attempted to broker a balanced, forward-looking agenda, but the conference remained constrained by geopolitical fragmentation and entrenched fossil-fuel interests. While framed in terms of equity and technological neutrality, the collective stance of oil-producing economies operated as a veto against binding fossil-fuel commitments. As a result, references to “transitioning energy systems” and renewables were retained, but explicit fossil-fuel phase-out language was removed.反對方的政治動態The Political Dynamics of Opposition沙烏地阿拉伯及阿拉伯國家集團的立場,雖然以“公平”和“發展”為理由,但在談判實踐中卻成為阻擋任何實質性油氣減量承諾的事實性否決。他們堅持“技術中立”,並強調以碳捕集(通過技術手段捕獲並處理二氧化碳的系統)等技術為主的減排路徑,反映出在科學已明確要求快速、結構性轉型的當下,這些國家仍試圖延長對化石燃料依賴的考量。The positions advanced by Saudi Arabia and the Arab Group, though framed as matters of equity and development, functioned in practice as de facto vetoes against any meaningful commitment to phase down oil and gas. Their insistence on technological neutrality and carbon-capture-driven strategies reflected a strategic effort to prolong hydrocarbon dependence at a moment when science demands rapid structural transformation.在化石能源生產國、新興經濟體與高度脆弱國家之間的博弈,成為COP30最突出的僵局之一。最終文字也清晰呈現了這種張力:一方面強調“推動能源系統轉型”和擴大可再生能源規模;另一方面,卻刻意避開產油國最敏感的表述。The clash between hydrocarbon producers, emerging economies, and climate-vulnerable nations produced one of COP30’s most visible impasses. The final text reflects these tensions: strong references to “transitioning energy systems” and advancing renewables, but carefully avoiding terms seen as politically toxic by oil-exporting countries.沙烏地阿拉伯的反對並非單純的阻撓,而是基於一套自洽的戰略邏輯:他們認為快速淘汰化石能源既不公平、技術條件尚未成熟,也可能引發地緣政治震盪。因此,沙烏地阿拉伯主張以技術路線作為轉型主軸,特別是推動“循環碳經濟”(Circular Carbon Economy)框架,通過碳捕集、再利用等手段減排,而不是直接削減化石燃料開採量。這一模式使能源生產國能夠在維持化石燃料驅動的經濟增長的同時,投入發展低排放技術。Saudi Arabia’s opposition was not merely obstruction but part of a coherent worldview: a belief that rapid fossil phase-outs are inequitable, technologically premature, and geopolitically destabilizing. Saudi Arabia promoted a technological approach to the transition, specifically the Circular Carbon Economy framework, emphasizing carbon capture, reuse, and removal rather than the elimination of fossil fuel extraction. This approach enables producer economies to maintain hydrocarbon-based growth while investing in low-emissions technologies.在阿拉伯國家集團的協調下,COP30最終未能就具有約束力的化石能源減排承諾達成一致——即便小島嶼開發中國家(SIDS)、歐盟以及部分拉美國家多次施壓也無力扭轉結果。沙烏地阿拉伯的立場背後是一套明確的政策邏輯:拒絕任何形式的“逐步淘汰”表述,主張以碳捕集、氫能等“低排放技術”為主的路徑;強調能源安全和各國國情差異;反對對化石燃料採取不對稱政策。這種做法既延續了化石能源驅動的發展模式,又通過投資減排技術在事實上延長了油氣產業的生命周期。The Arab Group’s coordinated interventions ensured that COP30—despite pressure from Small Island Developping States (SIDS), the EU, and several Latin American states—could not reach consensus on binding fossil reduction commitments.Saudi Arabia’s position was anchored in a coherent policy framework: rejection of explicit phase-out commitments, promotion of “low-emission technologies” such as carbon capture and hydrogen, emphasis on energy security and national circumstances, and resistance to any asymmetric treatment of fossil fuels. This approach supports hydrocarbon-based development while investing in mitigation technologies, effectively extending the lifespan of oil and gas.其他行為體——包括非阿拉伯的化石燃料生產國以及非洲集團部分成員——也因為經濟結構對化石能源的依賴、就業轉型的壓力,以及對能源可及性和外部附加條件的擔憂,而傾向支援更弱化的表述。在這樣的談判格局下,小島嶼開發中國家(SIDS)、最不發達國家(LDCs)以及眾多非洲脆弱國家,不得不面對遠超其自身談判能力的政治力量。Other actors, including non-Arab fossil producers and parts of the African Group, supported diluted commitments for reasons ranging from economic dependency and employment transitions to concerns over energy access and conditionality. In this environment, vulnerable states SIDS, LDCs, and many African nations found themselves confronting political forces far larger than their negotiating power.共識規則進一步放大了這些差異。反對方借助程序性的“阻斷”威脅來迫使各方讓步,從而主導了最終文字的形成。他們的籌碼為未來的COP主席國樹立了令人擔憂的先例,也凸顯了依賴共識的外交機制所固有的結構性脆弱性。The consensus rule amplified these dynamics. Opposition actors used the threat of blocking to secure concessions and shape the final text. Their leverage set a concerning precedent for future COP presidencies and highlighted the structural fragility of consensus-based diplomacy.金融取捨與談判籌碼Financial Trade-Offs and Bargaining Leverage在談判過程中,部分國家對強有力的減緩(mitigation)表述的抵制,某些時候實際上被當作一種談判籌碼,用以換取在適應融資或實施安排上更有利的結果。雖然這種交換未被公開承認,但從整體談判節奏來看,雙方之間確實形成了一種默契:以削弱減排承諾,換取在資金和執行層面的更大靈活度。Resistance to strong mitigation language appeared at times to function as bargaining leverage for securing more favorable outcomes on adaptation finance and implementation modalities. Although not explicitly acknowledged, negotiation dynamics suggested a tacit trade-off: mitigation ambition in exchange for financial flexibility.這種動態不僅削弱了整體減排議程,也強化了近年來愈發突出的趨勢——適應和韌性領域的承諾不斷推進,但相應的減排進展卻明顯滯後。This dynamic contributed to the dilution of the mitigation agenda and reinforced a broader trend: while adaptation and resilience commitments advance, they increasingly do so without parallel progress on emissions reduction.COP30 還受到美國缺席的深刻影響——這是近 30 年氣候談判中美國首次未出席。白宮在聲明中表示,美國不會為了“讓其他國家付出代價的模糊氣候目標”而犧牲自身經濟和國家安全。鑑於美國在歷史排放中的份額,其缺席在象徵意義和實際推動力上都造成了重要影響。Absence of the United States and China’s Reserved PostureCOP30 was also shaped by the absence of the United States the first such absence in 30 years of climate negotiations. A statement from the White House noted that the administration would not jeopardize U.S. economic and national security in pursuit of what it termed “vague climate goalsthat are killing other countries.”. Given the United States’ historical contribution to global emissions, its absence carried weight both symbolically and substantively.與此同時,中國也並未填補這一領導空缺。中方代表團在會上保持相對謹慎,對減排、氣候融資以及是否支援巴西的森林保護計畫等關鍵議題都避免亮明態度。儘管中國通過雙邊管道提供了大量氣候資金,但對於任何可能被解讀為需在聯合國框架下承擔正式出資義務的表述,中方始終保持保留。China, meanwhile, did not step into the leadership vacuum. Its delegation maintained a reserved posture, avoiding strong positions on key issues ranging from emissions reduction to climate finance and contributions to Brazil’s anti-deforestation initiatives. While China provides extensive climate finance bilaterally, it resisted language that could imply an expectation of formalized contributions under UN processes.美國的缺席疊加中國的謹慎,使會議現場形成了明顯的領導真空,不僅影響了整體談判的氛圍,也削弱了多個議題的推進動力。This combination, U.S. absence and Chinese reticence, created a leadership void that shaped the tone of the negotiations and weakened momentum on several fronts.巴西總統魯拉推出的旗艦項目“熱帶森林永續基金”(TFFF)同樣未能達到預期目標。該項目原計畫籌集 250 億美元的公共資金,用於激勵各國保護熱帶森林,但截至會期結束,僅獲得約 50 億美元的承諾,來自挪威、印度尼西亞、法國等少數國家。德國雖表示將很快出資,但尚未公佈具體金額。President Lula’s signature anti-deforestation initiative, the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, also fell far short of his ambitious goal of raising $25 billion in public financing that would essentially pay countries to protect forests. By the end of the talks, the program had received around $5 billion in pledges from a small handful of countries, including Norway, Indonesia and France, with Germany saying it would soon contribute an unspecified amount.該基金的支付方式也並非傳統意義上的贈款,而是依據各國所保護的熱帶及亞熱帶雨林面積核算,並通過衛星資料進行驗證;若發現森林退化或砍伐,將按每公頃相應扣減。Payments are not in the form of grants and calibrated based on the area of standing tropical and subtropical rainforest each country conserves verified by satellite data. Deductions for each hectare degraded or deforested will be levid as per findings.在此次談判中,中國在幾乎所有主要爭議點上都保持低調——無論是減排、為脆弱國家提供氣候資金,還是是否向巴西新設的森林保護基金出資,均未採取強硬立場。China avoided strong positions on most, if not all, of the main sticking points at the talks: reducing emissions, providing money to help poorer countries cope with climate change and contributions to a new Brazilian fund aimed at stemming deforestation.美國缺席與中國的審慎態度疊加,使本次大會在多個核心議題上缺乏明確推動力,也進一步凸顯了當前全球氣候治理中的領導真空。This combination U.S. absence and Chinese reticence created a leadership void that shaped the tone of the negotiations and weakened momentum on several fronts.路線之爭The Roadmap Debate包括歐盟、英國以及多國拉美和太平洋國家在內的 80 多個國家,都支援制定一份明確的化石燃料路線圖。他們認為,如果沒有清晰的里程碑和時間表,COP將難以觸及氣候危機的根源。然而,阿拉伯國家集團堅決反對任何具有約束性的路線圖,最終使這一倡議無法通過。More than 80 countries endorsed a detailed fossil-fuel roadmap, including the EU, UK, and many Latin American and Pacific nations. They argued that without clear milestones and timelines, the COP would fail to address the root cause of the climate crisis. However, the Arab Group rejected any roadmap with binding elements, preventing its adoption.儘管最終文字未能納入路線圖內容,巴西宣佈仍將推動一份關於化石燃料轉型和防止森林砍伐的自願平行路線圖。哥倫比亞也提出將在2026年4月自願承辦後續會議。這些動向顯示,各國正嘗試在傳統共識機制之外,通過“小多邊合作”尋求新的突破路徑。Although omitted from the final text, Brazil announced plans to advance voluntary, parallel roadmaps on fossil-fuel transition and deforestation. Colombia has volunteered to host a follow-up meeting in April 2026. These developments suggest a shift toward minilateral initiatives as Parties seek progress outside the constraints of consensus.會議成果The Conference OutcomeCOP30同時展現了多邊氣候外交的韌性與侷限性。此次峰會的結果揭示出一個清晰的現實:在當前全球格局中,地緣政治與發展利益往往壓過科學提出的緊迫需求。這也意味著,邁向COP31乃至未來更長周期的氣候處理程序,世界迫切需要政治層面的創新與更有效的集體問責機制。COP30 illustrates both the resilience and the limitations of multilateral climate diplomacy.The summit’s outcome reflected a global landscape where geopolitical and developmental interests often overshadow scientific urgency reinforcing the critical need for both political innovation and stronger collective accountability as the world moves toward COP31 and beyond.總體而言,儘管大會在動盪的國際環境中推進艱難,COP30仍取得了一些具有前瞻意義的成果,並催生了新的合作倡議,進一步確認了多邊氣候框架的核心地位。In the final analysis, we must say that despite the turbulent landscape, COP30 achieved several forward-looking elements and generated new initiatives reaffirming the multilateral climate framework.本次會議的結果可謂喜憂參半。一方面,適應與氣候韌性議題取得了重要進展,特別是在脆弱國家長期呼籲的領域實現了突破:到2035年將適應融資提高三倍的決定,標誌著全球優先事項的重大調整,承認了“保護易受影響社區”與“減少排放”同等重要。It delivered a mixed outcome, combining important advances in adaptation and climate resilience with clear shortcomings on mitigation ambition. On the achievement side, the conference made substantial progress in areas where vulnerable countries have long demanded action. The decision to triple adaptation finance by 2035 marks a significant recalibration of global priorities, acknowledging that safeguarding communities is as urgent as reducing emissions.與此同時,《貝倫健康行動計畫》(Belém Health Action Plan, BHAP)的通過,使“氣候韌性衛生體系”正式成為全球氣候行動的關鍵支柱之一。森林保護方面也迎來新的動力——“熱帶森林永續基金”的啟動通過混合融資獎勵熱帶森林保護,並配套推出海洋保護、數字創新和氣候智慧型農業等相關倡議。在地緣政治裂痕日益加深的背景下,這些舉措在一定程度上維繫了多邊合作的精神。Likewise, the adoption of the Belém Health Action Plan, with broad endorsements and initial funding, positioned climate-resilient health systems as a central pillar of global climate action. Forest protection also gained momentum through the creation of the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, which mobilizes blended finance to reward the preservation of tropical forests, alongside complementary initiatives targeting oceans, digital innovation, and climate-smart agriculture. These steps helped maintain a spirit of multilateral cooperation despite geopolitical fractures.然而,COP30在最關鍵的長期氣候穩定議題上依然未能突破。最終協議未對“逐步淘汰化石燃料”作出任何明確承諾,而是將相關推進留給聯合國體系之外的自願機制。這一退讓,被普遍認為與科學所要求的緊迫行動明顯不符。Yet COP30 fell short where it mattered most for long-term climate stabilization. The final agreement failed to deliver any explicit commitment to phase out fossil fuels, instead deferring to a voluntary process outside the UN framework a retreat widely viewed as inconsistent with scientific urgency.會議成果還在一定程度上削弱了IPCC的權威性:將其評估報告與未經同行評議的材料放在同等地位,使氣候談判賴以支撐的科學基礎受到動搖。雖然融資承諾在數字上看似可觀,但在責任分擔、資金落即時間等核心問題上仍缺乏明確方案;多個倡議——尤其是與森林相關的項目——又過度依賴尚未成熟的市場機制和非約束性承諾。加上會務組織不力、與原住民群體的緊張關係等操作層面的問題,也進一步影響了東道國處理程序的公信力。The outcome also diluted the authority of the IPCC, placing its assessments on equal footing with non-peer-reviewed material and weakening the scientific backbone of the negotiations. Financing pledges, while large in headline terms, lack clarity on burden-sharing and timelines, and several initiatives - notably on forests - rely heavily on untested market mechanisms and nonbinding promises. Operational shortcomings, including logistical failures and tensions with Indigenous groups, further undermined the credibility of the host process.COP30的啟示ConclusionCOP30召開之際,全球地緣政治進一步分裂,氣候外交在戰略競爭加劇、互信削弱以及各國發展優先事項不斷分化的背景下展開。巴西試圖通過一系列將雨林保護、生物經濟與全球脫碳相結合的倡議,在各方之間扮演“橋樑搭建者”的角色。然而,一小部分高度依賴化石燃料的經濟體堅決反對,使這些雄心勃勃的構想難以真正落地。COP30 convened at a moment of heightened geopolitical fragmentation, where climate diplomacy unfolded amid strategic rivalries, weakened trust, and diverging development priorities. Brazil sought to act as a bridge-builder through initiatives linking rainforest protection, bioeconomy development, and global decarbonization. However, opposition from a minority group of fossil-fuel-dependent economies significantly constrained the feasibility of these ambitions.本次峰會凸顯了未來氣候外交面臨的核心難題:如何在化石能源依賴型經濟的發展路徑與快速、系統性減排的緊迫需求之間求得平衡。儘管政治分歧趨於尖銳,但多邊合作的必要性仍不容忽視。COP30顯示,未來的氣候大會或許難以再達成全面性的宏大協議,但它們依舊是科學緊迫性與政治現實正面碰撞、展開博弈的關鍵場域。The summit highlighted the central challenge facing future climate diplomacy: reconciling the development pathways of fossil-dependent economies with the urgent need for rapid, systemic emissions reductions. While the political divides were stark, the necessity of multilateral cooperation proved equally evident. COP30 demonstrated that, although future COPs may struggle to deliver sweeping agreements, they remain essential spaces where scientific urgency confronts political reality.儘管如此,UNFCCC框架仍提供了必要的國際合法性、透明度和全球壓力機制。然而,如果主要排放國始終難以在關鍵議題上達成一致,未來的推進只能在“最低共識”基礎上緩慢前行。COP30的經驗也提出了一個關鍵問題:在地緣競爭加劇、發展路徑分化加深的時代,COP機制還能繼續有效運作嗎?The UNFCCC process continues to provide legitimacy, transparency, and global pressure. Yet without alignment among major emitters, progress will be incremental and negotiated around the lowest common denominator. The experience of COP30 underscores a pivotal question: Can the COP process remain effective in an era defined by geopolitical rivalry and divergent development models?這一問題的答案,不僅決定未來各屆COP的走向,也將深刻影響全球氣候治理體系的整體結構。The answer will shape not only future COPs but the architecture of global climate governance itself. (IPP評論)