梅里·马达沙希：COP30大会闭幕，一个悬而未决的议题留给世界巨大的问号|cop|巴西|张力|梅里·马达沙希|燃料|联合国

IPP评论是国家高端智库华南理工大学公共政策研究院（IPP）官方微信平台。

当地时间11月22日，第30次联合国气候变化大会（COP30）在巴西贝伦落幕。闭幕式上，COP30主席宣布通过新的气候行动总体协议，呼吁各国加速推进气候行动。但令人关注的是，最终文本并未出现任何明确提及“化石燃料”的措辞，也未就煤、石油和天然气的淘汰或减量路径形成共识。在大会谈判期间，欧盟曾与80多个国家共同推动将“化石燃料淘汰路线图”写入协议，但遭到沙特阿拉伯、俄罗斯等主要产油国的反对。经过多轮谈判，欧盟最终选择不阻挠协议通过，但明确表示不同意最终文本的内容。

大会的气氛也因关键参与者的缺席而显得格外复杂。尽管本届COP30吸引了190余国代表参会，但美国官方代表团的再度缺席。在峰会尾声，美国政府更是宣布美国沿海新区供油气钻探的新计划。针对当前国际气候合作的困境，联合国气候负责人 Simon Stiell表示气候怀疑论、内部分歧与地缘政治紧张已对国际合作造成严重冲击。

在IPP荣誉教授、联合国教科文组织国际创意和可持续发展中心顾问理事梅里·马达沙希（Mehri Madarshahi）看来，COP30呈现出明显的“进退交织”。一方面，部分融资与适应领域保持了多边合作的框架；另一方面，在最关键的化石燃料议题上却因产油国合力抵制而难有突破。美国首次缺席造成谈判现场的领导真空，而适应融资的扩张某种程度上也是以削弱减排力度为代价。最终成果虽有亮点，却远未达到应对气候紧迫性的行动速度。

这一切共同指向一个关键问题：在地缘政治对立和发展道路分化加速的背景下，COP机制是否仍能维持其原有的效能？答案将深刻影响未来全球气候治理的走向。

*本文作者：梅里·马达沙希（Mehri Madarshahi）

华南理工大学公共政策研究院（IPP）荣誉教授、联合国教科文组织国际创意和可持续发展中心（ICCSD）顾问理事

Honorary Professorof The Institute of Public Policy (IPP) ,South China University of Technology (SCUT) ; Member of Advisory Board of UNESCO International Centre for Creative Economy and Sustainable Development（ICCSD）

正文

COP 30 会议闭幕——淘汰化石燃料的计划仍不清晰

分裂世界中的气候大会未来何去何从？

COP 30 ended - No clear plan to phase out fossil fuel

The Future of COPs in a Divided World

引言

Introduction

贝伦举行的COP30落幕后，国际社会迎来了一个必须重新审视的时刻。此前舆论多将焦点放在谈判过程本身。实际上，峰会最终的成果及其背后的政治选择，更值得系统性地分析。

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召开之际，全球正面临愈发严峻的气候冲击、加速碎片化的地缘政治环境，以及国际社会对化石能源、气候融资和韧性建设采取更果断行动的强烈期待。距离2030年可持续发展目标仅剩五年，这场峰会因此被普遍视为一场“压力测试”——国际社会是否能够真正把先前的承诺转化为可执行的方案和路径？

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并不仅仅为年度气候外交画上一个句号；它更呈现出一幅关于全球气候治理走向、局限与动态变化的图景。尽管大会在气候适应（Adaptation）、健康韧性（health resilience）和森林融资（forest finance）等领域取得了进展，但最终协议却刻意避开了化石燃料这一全球排放的核心问题。“有所突破”与“刻意回避”并存的结构性矛盾，将深刻影响未来的气候合作。

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.

在地缘政治持续碎片化的背景下，COP30也提出了一个更加迫切的问题：气候大会是否仍具备推动体系性脱碳的能力，抑或正在转变为只能“管理”而无法真正化解危机的场合？

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?

本文将分析贝伦成果的深层影响，梳理COP30的成就与不足，并探讨其可能为下一阶段气候外交留下了怎样的“遗产”。

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.

作为《联合国气候变化框架公约》体系关键节点的COP30

COP30 as a Critical Moment in the UNFCCC Regime

在贝伦举行的COP30肩负着两大使命：一是推动各国进一步提升减排雄心，二是重建外界对多边气候治理的信心。在COP28仅给出“逐步远离化石燃料”的模糊表述之后，外界期待COP30能够拿出一份更具操作性的路线图——包含明确的时间表、重点行业基准以及关键节点，从而缩小全球减排的缺口。

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.

各方对本届大会寄予厚望，希望其能够重新确认“贝伦1.5°C目标”，在2030年前加快重点部门减排，提出可信的净零路径，并推出“巴库至贝伦1.3万亿美元路线图”（COP29主席国阿塞拜疆与COP30主席国巴西联合推出的一份气候融资路线图。核心目标是到2035年，每年为发展中国家动员至少1.3万亿美元的气候资金）相匹配的融资框架。相关规划旨在整合多元资金来源，通过新的融资目标优先支持适应工作，并设置可量化的指标以跟踪整体进展。

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，真正进入谈判阶段后，这些期待迅速被各方的结构性分歧所取代。由沙特阿拉伯、阿拉伯国家集团、俄罗斯及若干立场相近的发展中国家组成的反对阵营，在削弱乃至稀释最终文本方面发挥了关键作用。他们的表态反映出一个长期存在的矛盾：减排雄心、国际公平与各自经济利益之间，始终存在难以调和的结构性张力。

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.

巴西曾努力推动一份兼具平衡和前瞻性的议程，但整个会议仍深受地缘政治碎片化与化石燃料利益固化的制约。尽管相关国家将立场包装为“公平”或“技术中立”，但产油国的集体态度实际上对任何具有约束力的化石燃料承诺形成了事实性否决。最终协议的文本只能保留“推动能源系统转型”和“扩大可再生能源”的措辞，而对“逐步淘汰化石燃料”的明确表述则被完全删除。

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.

反对方的政治动态

The Political Dynamics of Opposition

沙特阿拉伯及阿拉伯国家集团的立场，虽然以“公平”和“发展”为理由，但在谈判实践中却成为阻挡任何实质性油气减量承诺的事实性否决。他们坚持“技术中立”，并强调以碳捕集（通过技术手段捕获并处理二氧化碳的系统）等技术为主的减排路径，反映出在科学已明确要求快速、结构性转型的当下，这些国家仍试图延长对化石燃料依赖的考量。

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.

在化石能源生产国、新兴经济体与高度脆弱国家之间的博弈，成为COP30最突出的僵局之一。最终文本也清晰呈现了这种张力：一方面强调“推动能源系统转型”和扩大可再生能源规模；另一方面，却刻意避开产油国最敏感的表述。

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.

沙特阿拉伯的反对并非单纯的阻挠，而是基于一套自洽的战略逻辑：他们认为快速淘汰化石能源既不公平、技术条件尚未成熟，也可能引发地缘政治震荡。因此，沙特主张以技术路线作为转型主轴，特别是推动“循环碳经济”（Circular Carbon Economy）框架，通过碳捕集、再利用等手段减排，而不是直接削减化石燃料开采量。这一模式使能源生产国能够在维持化石燃料驱动的经济增长的同时，投入发展低排放技术。

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.

在阿拉伯国家集团的协调下，COP30最终未能就具有约束力的化石能源减排承诺达成一致——即便小岛屿发展中国家（SIDS）、欧盟以及部分拉美国家多次施压也无力扭转结果。沙特的立场背后是一套明确的政策逻辑：拒绝任何形式的“逐步淘汰”表述，主张以碳捕集、氢能等“低排放技术”为主的路径；强调能源安全和各国国情差异；反对对化石燃料采取不对称政策。这种做法既延续了化石能源驱动的发展模式，又通过投资减排技术在事实上延长了油气产业的生命周期。

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.

其他行为体——包括非阿拉伯的化石燃料生产国以及非洲集团部分成员——也因为经济结构对化石能源的依赖、就业转型的压力，以及对能源可及性和外部附加条件的担忧，而倾向支持更弱化的表述。在这样的谈判格局下，小岛屿发展中国家（SIDS）、最不发达国家（LDCs）以及众多非洲脆弱国家，不得不面对远超其自身谈判能力的政治力量。

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.

共识规则进一步放大了这些差异。反对方借助程序性的“阻断”威胁来迫使各方让步，从而主导了最终文本的形成。他们的筹码为未来的COP主席国树立了令人担忧的先例，也凸显了依赖共识的外交机制所固有的结构性脆弱性。

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.

金融取舍与谈判筹码

Financial Trade-Offs and Bargaining Leverage

在谈判过程中，部分国家对强有力的减缓（mitigation）表述的抵制，某些时候实际上被当作一种谈判筹码，用以换取在适应融资或实施安排上更有利的结果。虽然这种交换未被公开承认，但从整体谈判节奏来看，双方之间确实形成了一种默契：以削弱减排承诺，换取在资金和执行层面的更大灵活度。

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.

这种动态不仅削弱了整体减排议程，也强化了近年来愈发突出的趋势——适应和韧性领域的承诺不断推进，但相应的减排进展却明显滞后。

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 还受到美国缺席的深刻影响——这是近 30 年气候谈判中美国首次未出席。白宫在声明中表示，美国不会为了“让其他国家付出代价的模糊气候目标”而牺牲自身经济和国家安全。鉴于美国在历史排放中的份额，其缺席在象征意义和实际推动力上都造成了重要影响。

Absence of the United States and China’s Reserved Posture

COP30 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.

与此同时，中国也并未填补这一领导空缺。中方代表团在会上保持相对谨慎，对减排、气候融资以及是否支持巴西的森林保护计划等关键议题都避免亮明态度。尽管中国通过双边渠道提供了大量气候资金，但对于任何可能被解读为需在联合国框架下承担正式出资义务的表述，中方始终保持保留。

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.

美国的缺席叠加中国的谨慎，使会议现场形成了明显的领导真空，不仅影响了整体谈判的氛围，也削弱了多个议题的推进动力。

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.

巴西总统卢拉推出的旗舰项目“热带森林永续基金”（TFFF）同样未能达到预期目标。该项目原计划筹集 250 亿美元的公共资金，用于激励各国保护热带森林，但截至会期结束，仅获得约 50 亿美元的承诺，来自挪威、印度尼西亚、法国等少数国家。德国虽表示将很快出资，但尚未公布具体金额。

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.

该基金的支付方式也并非传统意义上的赠款，而是依据各国所保护的热带及亚热带雨林面积核算，并通过卫星数据进行验证；若发现森林退化或砍伐，将按每公顷相应扣减。

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.

在此次谈判中，中国在几乎所有主要争议点上都保持低调——无论是减排、为脆弱国家提供气候资金，还是是否向巴西新设的森林保护基金出资，均未采取强硬立场。

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.

美国缺席与中国的审慎态度叠加，使本次大会在多个核心议题上缺乏明确推动力，也进一步凸显了当前全球气候治理中的领导真空。

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.

路线之争

The Roadmap Debate

包括欧盟、英国以及多国拉美和太平洋国家在内的 80 多个国家，都支持制定一份明确的化石燃料路线图。他们认为，如果没有清晰的里程碑和时间表，COP将难以触及气候危机的根源。然而，阿拉伯国家集团坚决反对任何具有约束性的路线图，最终使这一倡议无法通过。

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.

尽管最终文本未能纳入路线图内容，巴西宣布仍将推动一份关于化石燃料转型和防止森林砍伐的自愿平行路线图。哥伦比亚也提出将在2026年4月自愿承办后续会议。这些动向显示，各国正尝试在传统共识机制之外，通过“小多边合作”寻求新的突破路径。

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.

会议成果

The Conference Outcome

COP30同时展现了多边气候外交的韧性与局限性。此次峰会的结果揭示出一个清晰的现实：在当前全球格局中，地缘政治与发展利益往往压过科学提出的紧迫需求。这也意味着，迈向COP31乃至未来更长周期的气候进程，世界迫切需要政治层面的创新与更有效的集体问责机制。

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.

总体而言，尽管大会在动荡的国际环境中推进艰难，COP30仍取得了一些具有前瞻意义的成果，并催生了新的合作倡议，进一步确认了多边气候框架的核心地位。

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.

本次会议的结果可谓喜忧参半。一方面，适应与气候韧性议题取得了重要进展，特别是在脆弱国家长期呼吁的领域实现了突破：到2035年将适应融资提高三倍的决定，标志着全球优先事项的重大调整，承认了“保护易受影响社区”与“减少排放”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.

与此同时，《贝伦健康行动计划》(Belém Health Action Plan, BHAP)的通过，使“气候韧性卫生体系”正式成为全球气候行动的关键支柱之一。森林保护方面也迎来新的动力——“热带森林永续基金”的启动通过混合融资奖励热带森林保护，并配套推出海洋保护、数字创新和气候智慧型农业等相关倡议。在地缘政治裂痕日益加深的背景下，这些举措在一定程度上维系了多边合作的精神。

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在最关键的长期气候稳定议题上依然未能突破。最终协议未对“逐步淘汰化石燃料”作出任何明确承诺，而是将相关推进留给联合国体系之外的自愿机制。这一退让，被普遍认为与科学所要求的紧迫行动明显不符。

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.

会议成果还在一定程度上削弱了IPCC的权威性：将其评估报告与未经同行评议的材料放在同等地位，使气候谈判赖以支撑的科学基础受到动摇。虽然融资承诺在数字上看似可观，但在责任分担、资金落实时间等核心问题上仍缺乏明确方案；多个倡议——尤其是与森林相关的项目——又过度依赖尚未成熟的市场机制和非约束性承诺。加上会务组织不力、与原住民群体的紧张关系等操作层面的问题，也进一步影响了东道国进程的公信力。

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的启示

Conclusion

COP30召开之际，全球地缘政治进一步分裂，气候外交在战略竞争加剧、互信削弱以及各国发展优先事项不断分化的背景下展开。巴西试图通过一系列将雨林保护、生物经济与全球脱碳相结合的倡议，在各方之间扮演“桥梁搭建者”的角色。然而，一小部分高度依赖化石燃料的经济体坚决反对，使这些雄心勃勃的构想难以真正落地。

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.

本次峰会凸显了未来气候外交面临的核心难题：如何在化石能源依赖型经济的发展路径与快速、系统性减排的紧迫需求之间求得平衡。尽管政治分歧趋于尖锐，但多边合作的必要性仍不容忽视。COP30显示，未来的气候大会或许难以再达成全面性的宏大协议，但它们依旧是科学紧迫性与政治现实正面碰撞、展开博弈的关键场域。

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.

尽管如此，UNFCCC框架仍提供了必要的国际合法性、透明度和全球压力机制。然而，如果主要排放国始终难以在关键议题上达成一致，未来的推进只能在“最低共识”基础上缓慢前行。COP30的经验也提出了一个关键问题：在地缘竞争加剧、发展路径分化加深的时代，COP机制还能继续有效运作吗？

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?

这一问题的答案，不仅决定未来各届COP的走向，也将深刻影响全球气候治理体系的整体结构。

The answer will shape not only future COPs but the architecture of global climate governance itself.

梅里·马达沙希：COP30会是全球气候治理的转折点吗？｜中英文对照

关于IPP