COP30’s leaked “roadmap blockers” list isn’t what it seems. Here’s what the leak really shows about fossil-fuel politics – and what it means for green growth.
Most reports on COP30’s “fossil-fuel roadmap” boiled it down to a simple story: 80 countries for, 80 against. A clean split. Clear villains. Clear heroes.
The leaked “informal list” behind that headline tells a very different story – one that matters a lot if you work in clean energy, climate policy, or green tech investment.
This matters because the way fossil fuel politics are framed at COP directly shapes where public finance flows, how quickly fossil projects become stranded assets, and how fast demand grows for green technology.
Below, I’ll unpack what the leak actually shows, who really opposed the roadmap, and what this means for businesses and governments betting on the energy transition.
What the COP30 fossil-fuel roadmap leak actually revealed
The leaked list shows that the supposed “80 countries against a fossil-fuel roadmap” at COP30 in Belém was, at best, misleading and, at worst, politically convenient.
Brazil’s COP30 presidency had argued there were “80 for and 80 against” including a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels in the final outcome. Carbon Brief then obtained the informal list of 84 countries said to be on the “against” side.
Once the list was analyzed, three core problems jumped out:
- Fourteen countries appeared on both lists – as supporters and opponents.
- All 42 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) present at COP30 were marked as opponents, even though their own advisers say they never opposed a roadmap.
- Some named countries flatly reject being called blockers, including Turkey, co-president of next year’s COP31.
So the idea that there was a neat bloc of “roadmap blockers” simply doesn’t hold up.
The real divide at COP30 wasn’t between countries that want to transition and those that don’t. It was about how fast, under what conditions, and with what level of finance and fairness.
For anyone planning in the green economy, that distinction is crucial.
Who actually resisted the fossil-fuel roadmap – and why
The only groups that can clearly be described as resisting the roadmap as drafted were two established negotiating blocs: the Arab Group and the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs).
The Arab Group and LMDCs: not “climate villains”
These blocs – led in Belém by Saudi Arabia (Arab Group) and India (LMDCs) – consistently pushed back against prescriptive, one-size-fits-all fossil language.
They weren’t denying the need to transition. All countries had already signed on to a “transition away from fossil fuels” under the Paris Agreement at COP28. Their objections focused on:
- Equity: insisting that rich, high-emitting countries must move fastest.
- National sovereignty: demanding nationally determined pathways instead of top-down roadmaps.
- Finance and justice: linking fossil transition to guarantees on just transition, adaptation, and loss & damage funding.
In other words, they weren’t saying “no transition”. They were saying: no transition on unfair terms.
That nuance often got lost in media narratives, which preferred a sharper “blockers vs planet” storyline.
Least Developed Countries: mislabelled as opponents
The leak placed 42 Least Developed Countries in the “against” column, even though the LDC group had gone on record before COP30 calling a shift away from fossil fuels an “urgent action” to keep 1.5°C alive.
Their lead adviser put it plainly:
“The LDC group has never blocked a fossil-fuel roadmap. A few LDCs, including Nepal, have supported the idea.”
So why did they end up on an informal list of opponents?
Mostly because of messy bloc politics:
- Many LDCs are also members of other alliances like the Africa Group or AOSIS.
- The Brazilian presidency reportedly extrapolated positions from bloc chairs, not each country.
- Overlaps meant some countries were double-counted or miscounted.
For investors and NGOs, this is a warning sign: don’t rely on simplistic “blocker lists” to map climate risk or political will.
The EU and internal resistance
The European Union was one of the strongest champions of a formal fossil-fuel roadmap. Yet three EU members – Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Hungary – appeared on the “opposed” list.
That reflects something important for clean-tech markets:
- Even within regions that brand themselves as climate leaders, domestic politics can slow or dilute ambition.
- Publicly, the EU pushed hard for the roadmap.
- Privately, a minority of member states were fighting separate battles over the EU’s 2040 climate target and internal coal and gas dependencies.
For companies looking at Europe as a stable, long-term green market, the signal is still positive – but not monolithic.
Why the “80 for, 80 against” narrative was so misleading
The leaked list doesn’t just expose data errors. It shows how political shortcuts can distort the climate conversation.
Double counting, bloc assumptions, and political theatre
A few practical issues created the illusion of a hard split:
- Countries in multiple blocs (for example, small island states that are also LDCs) got pulled into both “for” and “against” columns.
- Bloc chairs’ statements were treated as if every member backed the same position, even when several broke ranks.
- Historical positions on climate policy were folded in, not just what countries actually said at COP30.
This produced the headline number the presidency used: “80 for, 80 against”. Convenient for arguing that consensus was impossible, but not very accurate.
Media framing: simple stories, messy reality
Several major outlets branded Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, and sometimes China as core “blockers”. Some of those countries did work to weaken or delay strong language.
But digging into what they actually said at COP30 shows a pattern:
- India repeatedly stated it was not opposed to a fossil-fuel phase-out plan, but refused to accept a uniform pathway for all countries.
- China positioned itself as wanting a reframed narrative: focus more on scaling renewables than demonising specific fuels.
- Nigeria, heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues, argued that any fossil transition must be “nationally determined”.
These aren’t comfortable positions if you want a fast global phase-out. But they’re not simple obstruction either.
For climate communicators and green tech brands, the lesson is clear: binary “for or against” framing reduces credibility and weakens coalitions.
What this means for green technology, finance, and policy
If you work in climate tech, finance, or policy, the leak is less about diplomatic drama and more about reading market signals correctly.
1. The fossil transition is locked in – the pace and fairness are the battleground
Multiple COP decisions now anchor the idea of transitioning away from fossil fuels, even if the roadmap wasn’t adopted formally at COP30.
That means:
- Fossil-heavy assets face rising transition risk over the 2030s and 2040s.
- Governments resisting detailed global roadmaps are still, in practice, under pressure to adopt national transition plans.
- Countries that want a roadmap (EU, many small islands, Latin American states, etc.) will keep designing their own – and that’s where policy innovation will happen.
For green tech and clean energy companies, the opportunity lies in countries and regions that are already signalling clear fossil exit paths.
2. Equity and finance will decide how fast developing countries move
Developing countries made one thing crystal clear at COP30: no fair finance, no politically sustainable fossil phase-out.
Any serious roadmap that wants broad support will need to bundle:
- Fossil fuel phase-out timelines
- Just transition plans for workers and regions
- Scaled-up public climate finance, especially for adaptation and loss & damage
- Clear roles for private capital and blended finance
If you’re structuring funds, projects, or public–private partnerships, build in:
- Local job creation and retraining components
- Support for grid upgrades, storage, and flexibility
- Safeguards against energy access backsliding
Transitions that ignore these issues will keep running into political roadblocks – and project delays.
3. Roadmaps will shift from UN text to multi-actor processes
Since consensus text failed, Brazil’s COP30 presidency announced it will pursue two roadmaps under its own initiative:
- One on halting and reversing deforestation
- One on transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable way
These won’t be classic UN legal agreements. They’ll more likely be hybrid political processes involving:
- Governments from both fossil-producing and consuming countries
- International organisations
- Unions and workers from fossil sectors
- Industry, investors, and civil society
If you’re in green technology, this is where you want a seat at the table. These roadmaps will shape:
- Which technologies get fast-tracked
- How transition risks are allocated between states and companies
- Which sectors (power, industry, transport) move first
How organisations should respond now
There’s a better way to read COP30 than scanning for a villains list. Here’s a practical approach for climate-forward organisations.
1. Map countries by transition conditions, not “for/against” labels
Instead of asking “who blocked the roadmap?”, ask:
- Who wants fast transition and strong global rules?
(Think: EU, AOSIS, many Latin American and island states.) - Who wants transition but insists on national control and equity guarantees?
(Large emerging economies, most of the LMDCs, much of the Africa Group.) - Who is structurally tied to fossil export revenues and will move last unless forced?
(Core petrostates and some major gas exporters.)
This lens is far better for:
- Market entry strategies
- Policy engagement plans
- Risk assessments for long-lived infrastructure
2. Align green investment with political realities
For investors and project developers:
- Prioritise countries that already back explicit fossil phase-out or roadmaps – policy risk is lower.
- In fossil-dependent economies, build strong just transition components and community benefits into projects from day one.
- Track not just national targets, but negotiating bloc behaviour – it often reveals red lines before they hit domestic law.
3. Communicate with nuance – and avoid lazy blame
If you’re a climate NGO, green brand, or public institution, resist the temptation to reduce complex equity debates to “blockers vs heroes”.
The reality? That framing:
- Alienates potential allies in the Global South
- Ignores legitimate justice concerns
- Makes durable coalitions for phase-out harder, not easier
Clear, honest communication about who’s slowing progress is necessary. But it has to distinguish between:
- Those demanding fair conditions for transition
- Those actively working to prolong fossil dependence
Where the fossil-fuel roadmap goes next
The leaked COP30 list doesn’t prove the world is split down the middle on fossil fuels. It proves that the politics of how to phase them out are messy, contested, and deeply tied to justice and finance.
For the green technology sector, that’s not a reason to slow down. It’s a reason to get more strategic:
- Focus on countries and regions already pushing for clear fossil exit plans.
- Build projects and business models that embed just transition principles, not treat them as an add-on.
- Engage early with the Brazil-led roadmap processes and the upcoming fossil phase-out conference in Colombia.
The fossil era is ending. The real question for 2026 and beyond is who gets to shape the glide path – and who benefits from the trillions that will move into clean energy, resilient infrastructure, and green jobs.
If your organisation wants to be on the right side of that shift, now’s the time to plan for a world where fossil-fuel roadmaps aren’t an optional side conversation, but the backbone of economic strategy.