In the VVIP section of the COP30 conference in Belém, Brazil, far from the international cameras capturing every moment, Selwin Hart sits in a closed-door meeting helping to push the process forward. I’ve been given rare access to this space to conduct our long-awaited interview. It runs a bit late—he is delayed by another meeting—but I expected that. When he finally steps out, he jokes, “This has been two years in the making.”
Since COP28 in Dubai, Hart and I have tried to secure this sit-down, but conflicting schedules pushed it all the way to Belém.
Hart is at the nerve centre of global climate politics, serving as the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres’ climate adviser. From strategic advice to policy guidance and technical expertise, he plays a pivotal role in shaping global climate action. But his journey began in his native Barbados, where he worked at a critical moment as a climate negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).
The geopolitical landscape has shifted significantly since his days inside negotiating rooms. I spoke to him last week about the most pressing issues now confronting the UN system and the global climate process.
Q: We’re sitting here at COP30. The United States is absent. How much is their lack of presence being felt?
A: The reality is that the absence of the United States from the multilateral climate process has presented some challenges. The US has had a significant impact on this process over the years. But no other country has left the Paris Agreement, and all the other countries have shown up. As of now, over 117 or 118 parties have submitted their NDCs, representing roughly 76 per cent of global emissions. So despite the US not being here, the rest of the world remains committed—and the rest of the world is moving on.
The United States, though a major emitter, was also a significant leader.
They led on some issues, and on others—like finance and adaptation—we wanted them to lean in more. The world is rapidly changing, and leadership is emerging from different quarters. Since the Paris Agreement was finalised 10 years ago, we’ve seen a rapid transformation of the global energy landscape, and this is reflected in many of the new NDCs now being put forward.
The International Energy Agency’s Global Outlook Report last week forecasted rising demand for oil and gas through 2050 under current policies. How do you view that report?
The current policy scenario is totally out of line with what countries have committed to do—and frankly, what many countries are already doing. I urge every country, especially oil and gas producers, particularly low- and middle-income and emerging producers, to study these trends carefully. Plan carefully for the transition. Diversify your economies. Ensure that any new contracts with fossil fuel companies are transparent and protect the interests and welfare of your citizens.
Some of those countries are in your own neighbourhood—Suriname, Guyana, and Trinidad.
I would encourage all policymakers—at home and abroad—to plan carefully for the transition. Make sure revenues are reinvested in people and in economic diversification. No one wants a disruptive transition. But we know where the least-cost producers are, and believe me: the transition is inevitable, unstoppable, and irreversible.
Have global conflicts affected the diplomacy required to keep the COP process moving?
Geopolitical instability anywhere affects any multilateral process. I won’t get into specifics, but geopolitical conflict and divisions impact every multilateral negotiation—climate, biodiversity, plastics, everything.
The 1.5°C target is under intense debate. Some say it’s out of reach, but AOSIS insists it’s still alive.
It is definitely still on the table, Ryan. The science shows that a temporary overshoot of 1.5°C is almost certain and will likely happen within the next decade. But with immediate, ambitious action—reducing fossil fuels, accelerating the energy transition, addressing methane, reversing deforestation—countries can still bring global temperatures back below 1.5°C before the end of the century. Our priorities are clear: make the overshoot as short as possible, as small as possible, and as safe as possible.
Adaptation has been contentious at COP30. African and Arab groups want the adaptation indicators delayed by two years.
We need an adaptation package. Even if we adopt the indicators, that alone won’t address the urgency of the adaptation and resilience financing crisis facing African nations, small island developing states, least developed countries, and our brothers and sisters in Latin America. We need a broader conversation—signals, commitments, and a clear outcome on adaptation finance. That’s the message we’ve been delivering to developed countries.
As we speak, Barbadians are cleaning up after severe flooding in the north. Jamaica is still recovering from Hurricane Melissa. We’re moving too slow.
In this decade, the number of Category 5 hurricanes has more than doubled compared to the previous decade. These extreme events—floods, droughts, storms—are no longer exceptions; they’re becoming the new normal. The transition away from fossil fuels is not about punishing oil-producing countries or communities tied to that industry. It’s about addressing the climate crisis.
Vulnerable countries aren’t asking for charity when they call for more adaptation finance—they’re being battered by climate disasters. This is why the COP process is so important. And in the Caribbean, we must embed adaptation and resilience into everything we do—where we build, how we build, how we transport ourselves. All of it must change. We have to prepare for a climate-disrupted future.
