There was little hope for progress at the start of this year’s UN climate summit. The annual conference opened amid strong divisions over the future of fossil fuels, stalled climate finance pledges and the notable absence of one of the world’s largest emitters — the US.
Ultimately the talks did yield some progress, though they’ll be little comfort to those hoping the conference would result in an urgent plan to halt the planet’s rapid warming, which is on track to blow past the 1.5C cap set by the historic Paris agreement a decade ago.
In the final days of the conference, which took place at the heart of the Amazon rainforest in Belem, Brazil, 80 countries did ultimately come together to reach an agreement. But the final deal has been viewed with disappointment by many nations and does little to rein in planet-warming emissions. The agreement omitted any mention fossil fuels, for example.
What it did provide were commitments to increase financing for poorer countries already struggling with the impacts of climate change, though rich nations remain far behind in the promises they’ve already made.
In an October report, the UN estimated developing countries would need 12 to 14 times current finance flows to fund climate adaptation. The difference after this year’s talks was a small win for climate-vulnerable countries, with rich nations agreeing a long-sought pledge to triple adaptation finance, committing $120 billion a year to poorer nations — but only by 2035, compared to the original 2030 goal, and drawn from the existing $300 billion commitment promised in 2015, rather than adding to it.
Still, it suggests a shift in focus from mitigation of global warming to adaptation, after years of pressure from nations like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Vietnam, where the majority of fashion’s supply chain lies.
The industry depends on workers in these countries to stitch its clothes and has seen them suffering as temperatures inside factories rise to unbearable levels. But for companies hoping governments will do the adaptation work for them, the reality is that the industry doesn’t have the luxury to wait for others to solve its problems.
“The fashion industry should not take that as an indication that they’ve got five or 10 years to get their act together, because workers are suffering from heat stress and, in turn, so are margins,” said Jason Judd, executive director at Cornell University’s Global Labour Institute.
One of the key setbacks from the COP deal was the gutting of deforestation protections, which, alongside being a blow for Amazonian communities, does not bode well for fashion’s leather supply chains, where cattle-linked forest loss remains a defining risk. For an industry dependent on both fossil-fuel-based synthetics and land-intensive animal agriculture, the mixed outcome underscored the need to look beyond high-level proclamations.
During the summit, the UN Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action issued a communiqué urging governments to accelerate renewable-energy access, mandate corporate climate reporting and unlock global finance mechanisms. These steps, they argued, would help brands advance coal phase-outs and meet emissions-reduction targets.
In response to the communiqué, climate groups including Action Speaks Louder, Stand.earth and Fashion Revolution — while commending the Charter’s united front — warned that fashion’s emissions are still rising sharply and could reach 1.24 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030 if business continues as usual. They also criticised the UN for lacking binding commitments and for failing to centre workers, noting that the people most exposed to extreme heat and climate instability remain absent from most brand climate plans.
As it stands, fashion remains far off track on its own climate goals.
With sustainability slipping down the corporate agenda, executives grappling with economic uncertainty, shifting consumer demand and geopolitical shocks, swift change feels increasingly unlikely. Many brands are still focused on short-term performance and have not fully assessed how exposed their supply chains are to climate risks, focused on mitigation above adaptation, while for those who have, financing remains a major hurdle.
“Nobody in the industry wants to own this problem — not the brands, not the suppliers, not the governments,” said Judd. “But if you’re a garment worker in Dhaka in May when it’s 33 degrees in the afternoon, to hear that world governments in Brazil have agreed on some broad measures for adaptation, that’s very little comfort.”