As special correspondents for two different Brazilian TV networks, Cultura and Gazeta, we covered four Conferences of the Parties (COPs) between 2015 and 2018 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In Paris, Marrakesh, Bonn, and Katowice, we observed how each opening speech served as a compass for environmental diplomacy during those climate summits. In Belém, Simon Stiell’s address as UN Climate Change Executive Secretary was no different. His words encapsulated the trajectory so far, part reflection, part warning, part call to action.
At the beginning of his speech, Stiell recalled the symbolic milestone of 2015: “Ten years ago in Paris, we were designing the future, a future that would clearly see the curve of emissions bend downwards.” The metaphor of the curve structures his entire discourse: to bend the curve means progress; failing to do so would be catastrophe. When we connect two of Stiell’s statements, “We were designing the future” and “Colleagues, welcome to that future”, the tone of celebration quickly turns into a warning, as in: “But I am not sugar-coating it. We have so much more work to do. We must move much, much faster…” This turn defines the tone of the speech, acknowledging achievements while emphasizing the urgency of action. Will COP30, in fact, be the Climate Conference that fully embraces the urgency of action?
Stiell’s discourse combines institutional authority, speaking as a UN representative in a position of global leadership, with a deep sense of urgency about the risks in play, with the future itself at stake. When he asserts, “The science is clear: we can and must bring temperatures back down to 1.5°C after any temporary overshoot,” Stiell grounds his rhetoric in scientific objectivity, transforming the 1.5°C figure into both a factual seal of truth and a moral boundary. In this sense, climate action is presented not only as a technical decision but as an ethical choice.
There is, however, a key rhetorical inflection when Stiell situates Belém as a symbolic territory: “We find ourselves here in Belém, at the mouth of the Amazon. And we can learn a lot from this mighty river.” The metaphor of the river and its tributaries, “not a single entity, rather a vast river system supported by over a thousand tributaries”, conveys the idea of cooperation. Just as the Amazon is woven by countless streams, climate implementation must be sustained by multiple currents of international collaboration. The Amazon region is thus invoked as both a symbolic representation of interdependence and a political stage.
Stiell openly criticizes the insufficiency of national actions: “Because individual national commitments alone are not cutting emissions fast enough.” His speech rejects isolated voluntarism and calls for acceleration, recognizing that there is no time to wait for nationally determined contributions to “slowly trickle in.” Economically, the address balances pragmatism and realism by reminding that climate disasters “rip double digits off GDP,” and that droughts and famines displace millions. At the same time, Stiell reframes the energy transition as an opportunity: “Solar and wind are now the lowest-cost power in 90 percent of the world. Renewables overtook coal this year…”, a narrative shift that turns collapse into growth, and crisis into opportunity. The coming days of COP30 will reveal how present the Global South will be in this debate, especially as climate disasters continue to generate unprecedented human, socio-environmental, economic, and political impacts in these regions.
Stiell attempts to relocate the center of the climate narrative. The crisis is no longer framed only as a moral threat, but as an economic risk and an opportunity for development. The sentence “Lamenting is not a strategy. We need solutions.” summarizes this turning point, lamentation is unproductive, action is imperative. The speech assumes a performative tone, summoning leaders and nations into a collective arena of action: “Your job here is not to fight one another – your job is to fight this climate crisis, together.” If fighting cannot be a solitary act, will COP30 also assume the moral and political duty of ensuring that no one is left behind in facing the asymmetric impacts of the climate emergency?
The time for rhetoric is running out. Stiell transforms the language of hope, dominant in Paris, into a grammar of pragmatic urgency. By using metaphors such as the curve, the tributaries, and the arena, his speech calls for collective action but does not detail how this acceleration will occur. When mentioning figures such as the 300 billion dollars already agreed in climate finance, with developed countries taking the lead, and the goal of advancing toward 1.3 trillion dollars through the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap, meant to guide the fulfillment of these commitments, the UNFCCC Executive Secretary signals directions but presents no concrete instruments to achieve them. It is precisely within this gap that one of the central tasks of COP30 lies.
A decade separates our coverage of COP21 in Paris from this COP30 in Belém, yet we dare suggest that the symbolic power of Stiell’s speech lies more in the call to action than in concrete proposals, at least for now. In Belém, Stiell speaks less to local audiences and more to the international political system. COP30 cannot merely invoke global metaphors. From its opening words, a Climate Conference must be sensitive and attentive enough to ensure that no one, and no place, is left behind, not in the margins nor between the lines of the diplomatic text. If we cannot act alone, this also means amplifying voices and prompting the listening of those who have been left behind.
Stiell’s address thus fulfills a strategic role, to rekindle international cooperation, reposition the debate around action, and renew the moral contract of transition. Yet, it also exposes the structural limits of climate summits, the distance between global discourse and the material reality of crises in specific territories.
The message echoing from Belém at the start of COP30 is clear: the curve may have been bent, but time itself has bent with it. While world leaders speak about arenas and agreements, Amazonian communities are already living the future that global speeches only announce. Speaking is important, but communicating is identifying with the other. And identifying with the other, who is increasingly suffering from the impacts of climate change, means acting.
Cilene Victor is a journalist who has worked as special correspondent in several countries, covering humanitarian issues and Climate Conferences in Paris, Marrakesh, Bonn, and Katowice. She is a Full Professor in the Graduate Programs in Communication and Religious Studies at the Methodist University of São Paulo, where she leads the research group Humanitarian Journalism and Media Interventions (HumanizaCom). She also teaches at FGV LAW, is a co-founder of the Global South Perspectives Network and a researcher with the Climate Disaster Project (University of Victoria, Canada).
