Insights
COP30: Good cop, or bad cop?

As an ethical investor that wants to protect the planet, people and animals, we think the concept of ‘climate change denial’ is unhelpful.  Especially when it’s used to defer action or reduce transparency.

From the appearance of mosquitos in Iceland for the first time, to lethal flashfloods in Spain and heat-records in Australia, there should be no doubt that global warming is real.

Not only is it changing how we live, but in some cases, it’s changing whether we live at all. An estimated 250,000 extra people are forecast to die each year, between 2030 and 2050, due to the impact of global warming.

All of which brings us to the COP30 summit in Brazil in November.

COP stands for ‘Conference of the Parties’ and is an UN-organised event that represents the most significant climate-focused gathering in the global calendar.

The very first event was held in Berlin in 1995. Today, it has morphed into a gigantic summit that unites politicians, scientists, investors, CEOs, and a whole range of influential parties with the shared goal of tackling global warming.

This year’s event – entitled COP30 – is taking place in Brazil over two weeks.

Only countries which are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) can participate in negotiations at COP. There are 198 ‘Parties’ in total, including New Zealand (see below). The European Union is considered a Party, as are the member states within it, who are counted on an individual basis.

The event hasn’t always been well received. There was criticism last year at COP29 in Baku that lobbyists from the oil, gas, and coal sectors were allowed to attend.

Meanwhile, the choice of location for this year’s event has raised eyebrows. The Brazilian government is currently ramping up oil drilling licensing in the country. And only a couple of weeks ahead of COP30, it had approved exploratory drilling near the mouth of the Amazon by state-run oil giant Petrobras. Current projections show Brazil being on course to become a top-5 global oil producer by 2030.

A new chapter is also being written this year by the U.S.’ decision not to send any high-level representatives to the summit. While the move fits the narrative of Donald Trump, who recently labelled climate change as the “the greatest con job”, the superpower’s absence is regrettable.

For global warming to be tackled most effectively, a level of international cooperation is required, and America’s input always holds weight. Even more so as the U.S. is currently the world’s second biggest contributor to carbon emissions (behind China).

Before we lose ourselves in a sea of cynicism, it’s important to point out that previous COP events have proved fruitful.

As an example, COP3 in 1997 yielded the ‘Kyoto Protocol’. This was the first international treaty to establish legally binding emissions reduction targets for greenhouse gases.

Later, there was the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ from 2009 which is considered an important stepping stone for policy making that followed. Amongst other things, it recognised the need to limit the increase in global temperature to below 2°C.

And then there was the ‘Paris Agreement’ of 2015 from COP21 – arguably the most famous and widely recognised development from all COP events so far. It established the legally binding treaty that committed signatories to striving to lower global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

New Zealand is attending COP30 as an official Party to the UNFCCC, and having submitted its recently updated emissions targets:

At a domestic level, NZ is aiming to be net zero for emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2050. However, this excludes emissions of biogenic methane, where there is a less stringent target in place. As the Ministry for the Environment website states, NZ is targeting a “24 to 47 per cent reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including 10 per cent reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030”.

In September 2025, the NZ Government decided to reduce that methane target to 14 up to 24 % below 2017 levels. Farmers, a key cog in NZ’s economic engine, welcomed the news. But climate change campaigners described the decision as prioritisation of profit over the planet.

At an international level, New Zealand has committed to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2030. This in line with the Paris Agreement.

However, as we covered in our Market Review for October, the NZ Government has dismantled Climate Related Disclosure reporting. On the one hand, that’s a pragmatic win that reduces compliance costs (for those companies who no longer need to produce these reports). But, on the other hand, it’s a loss for those wanting more transparency from NZ companies regarding non-financial risks. This move seems at odds with a genuine commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the basis that measurement is the first step to management. And the fact that actions speak louder than words.

In the run-up to the latest gathering, Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, issued a dire warning about the need to cut emissions: “humanity has failed to limit man-made global warming to the totemic 1.5ºC, leading to “devastating consequences”.

This year, one of the five core objectives is to clarify how to source and allocate the USD 1.3 trillion needed for climate action in developing countries18.

Attention will also turn to the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), and how to allocate an initial “USD 250 million for projects supporting communities affected by climate impacts.”

At Pathfinder, we believe that the investments people select can complement national and international-level efforts to address the climate emergency. The chances of success will improve if there’s a concerted, collective, and committed effort to take affirmative action.

We aim to invest in companies that have lower-than-benchmark (MSCI All Country World Index) emissions to drive down our overall emission profile. In practice we use exclusions (things we seek to avoid) that include revenue thresholds and avoided activities, as well as exceptions. You can read more about how this works specifically for Fossil Fuels here.

How this impacts our holdings is brought to life with examples of real stocks we invest in via our Impact Stories webpage, (which is well worth checking out) and in annual reporting of Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (per fund and per sector) in our Ethical Scorecards and Sustainability Reports.

While it’s easy to be cynical about these gatherings and their locations, they still have the potential to help address global warming on a scale, and with an urgency, that is desperately needed. And while individual actions contribute to personal well-being,  responsibility for systemic change largely lies with governments.
Rules put in place by them have the potential to change the course of the future.
For example, lethal smog was greatly reduced after the implementation of the Clean Air Act in America in 1970 (despite the cynicism of the President who signed it, Nixon, saying “In a flat choice between smoke and jobs, we’re for jobs.”). As EY mention in their article 6 Ways That Governments Can Drive the Green Transition - governments can ”choose from a wide range of policy interventions and financing measures to support the transformation of energy and industrial systems, improve energy efficiency, tackle environmental pollution, and protect and replenish natural capital.”

Only time will tell whether it will be a case of bad COP or good COP when it comes to COP30 in Brazil. Our hope is that it’s the latter.