Cop30 nearly went up in smoke – quite literally when a fire broke out in the conference centre. While the official statements talk about the historic success of the negotiations, a closer look at the results reveals a more fractured reality. Mired in geopolitical tensions, there were no clear winners. While some progress was made, the lack of a US delegation left a gaping hole in leadership; one that China was well positioned to take up, but failed to step up on its commitments.

With no one to put pressure on other economies like China and petrostates to take more responsibility, there was a lack of consensus and deep division on key issues. An effort to adopt a plan to phase out fossil fuels was dropped, and there was very little pressure on the shortfall in national climate commitments. The lack of a transition away from fossil fuels nearly derailed negotiations and in the end no mention of fossil fuels was made.

“Despite the disagreements over an explicit plan for the transition away from fossil fuels, the Paris Agreement implicitly mandates this as it is impossible [to] meet its goals without the replacement of dirty energy with clean alternatives across the world,” said Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics.

Instead, leadership on transitioning away from fossil fuels is happening outside Cop, with the governments of Colombia and the Netherlands announcing their own international conference on the just transition away from fossil fuels, hoping to fill the gap that Cop30 has failed to address.

Still, it wasn’t all doom and gloom. Some measures were passed, including efforts on adaptation, just transition and climate finance. It also succeeded in putting more people impacted by climate change at the heart of the discussions, with a record number of Indigenous Peoples attending.

Adaptation finance to triple by 2035

On adaptation, Cop30 delivered what Stern called “genuine progress” with a pledge to triple the finance goal from US$40bn to $120bn annually by 2035. Yet this five-year delay from the 2030 timeline proposed by climate vulnerable nations leaves frontline communities without the necessary support to “match the escalating needs they are facing now”, said Mohamed Adow of Powershift Africa.

In Belém, parties formalised the Baku Adaptation Roadmap, a 2026-2028 work programme for operationalising adaptation goals, including support for vulnerable nations to develop national adaptation plans. A comprehensive set of 59 voluntary, non-prescriptive indicators to track progress under the Global Goal on Adaptation was also finalised at the summit, representing a significant step forward for transparency and accountability.

But there’s a flaw: no dedicated funding or clear mechanism was introduced to require rich countries to actually deliver adaptation finance. While the summit’s presidency promised adaptation would no longer be secondary to mitigation, the final text merely “urges” rich nations “to increase the trajectory of their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation”.

Consequently, there are fears those most exposed to, and least responsible for, climate impacts will be left to pick up the bill. Mamadou Ndong Toure of Practical Action in Senegal argued that: “Adaptation cannot be built on shrinking commitments; people on the frontline need predictable, accountable support.” Without binding finance, there is a danger adaptation goals remain aspirational.

Groundbreaking just transition mechanism established, but finance gap threatens delivery

Another serious institutional achievement of this year’s Cop was the establishment of the Belém Action Mechanism on Just Transition, following years of civil society pressure. The mechanism commits to providing technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge sharing to ensure the transition away from fossil fuels supports workers and communities.

The new mechanism provides concrete steps towards implementation and ensures just transition will remain on the agenda at future summits.

Karabo Mokgonyana of Power Shift Africa celebrated the outcome, noting it had “finally grounded just transition in justice” by recognising equity, inclusivity, and the developmental needs of workers and communities, not just sectors or technologies as previous iterations did.

However, its effectiveness depends entirely on implementation. As Friederike Strub of Recourse Finance cautioned: “To make just transition happen we need public finance backing, systemic economic reform, and a clear roadmap to end fossil fuels.”

A critical concern remains that multilateral development banks (MDBs), which are expected to finance just transition projects, continue funding fossil fuels. With 73% of MDB climate finance delivered as loans rather than grants – often tied to austerity conditions – and MDBs actively promoting gas as a “transition fuel,” countries risk being locked into extractive models that directly contradict just transition principles.

Loss and damage fund launches

The final text also included a review of the Warsaw mechanism for loss and damage, the UN’s core policy framework for supporting countries on the frontlines of climate impacts. Financing for loss and damage has long been a fraught topic at previous Cops, with progress painfully slow: about $789m has been pledged to the fund but only around $432m is actually in the fund’s account.

At Cop30, the fund launched its first call for funding requests with US$250m in grants allocated for 2025–2026. Applications open on 15 December, with countries given six months to submit proposals.

Harjeet Singh, global engagement director at the Fossil Fuel Non‑Proliferation Treaty Initiative, argued that while the institutional architecture is now “fit for purpose”, money remains the missing piece: “A system cannot rebuild a home without money. Bureaucratic pledges cannot feed a family whose crops have failed.”

Two-year work programme on climate finance

Climate finance wasn’t one of the main agenda items but it ended up playing a key role during Cop. One of the efforts included the launch of a two-year work programme on climate finance with a focus on article 9 of the Paris Agreement which states that countries “shall provide” climate finance. This usually means public financing, but the $300bn a year goal from last year’s Cop includes public and private finance.

This has caused some debate, as developing countries argue it allows developed countries to meet the goal without increasing their contributions.

Instead, a compromise was reached to include a two-year roadmap on how to implement article 9, including the provision on country obligations which will be co-chaired by representatives from developing and developed countries.

This is part of a larger financing goal to $1.3tn, known as the Baku to Belém roadmap. While the roadmap delayed implementation by five years from 2030 to 2035, it includes practical steps on how to drive investment, said Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute.

“Announcements throughout the week, from risk guarantees to country platforms, showed that these ideas are already moving from concept to implementation,” Dasgupta said.

$6.6bn in funding for Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility

Despite momentum around Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), the final outcome did not include a commitment to tackling deforestation. Still, Cop30 president André Aranha Corrêa do Lago said the Brazilian presidency would work on creating roadmaps on deforestation outside of Cop.

The final text did emphasise the importance of halting deforestation by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement, but earlier drafts to reverse deforestation were left out

Brazil’s TFFF was hailed as a milestone by the Cop30 presidency, after it secured $6.6bn in funding from Germany, Norway, Brazil, Portugal, France and the Netherlands. The aim is to pay countries to keep their tropical forests instead of allowing them to be destroyed. It hopes to secure $25bn in funding to help support 74 tropical forest countries including Brazil and those in the Congo basin.

However, some have questioned how effective the fund will be without binding government rules to stop harmful logging practices, as well as concerns about the financial risk and very little involvement with Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Critical minerals removed from final text

The removal of all references to critical minerals governance from the final text ranks among the summit’s most consequential failures. Despite vocal support from the African Group of Negotiators and the Alliance of Small Island States, draft language on “social and environmental risks” in mining and “responsible” mineral processing was deleted in final negotiations.

China’s delegation led the opposition, citing a lack of consensus on definitions and potential damage to Chinese business interests, according to observers speaking to Dialogue Earth. Yet the stakes are undeniable. “Minerals are the backbone of the shift away from fossil fuels,” warned Antonio Hill of the Natural Resource Governance Institute. “Leaving their governance out of just-transition planning will undermine efforts to accelerate renewable energies by 2030.”

Beyond Cop’s negotiating rooms, African leaders are charting their own course. At a high-level dialogue held ahead of the G20 summit, senior policymakers outlined a pan-African strategic plan for turning mineral wealth into negotiating power.

Panellists stressed the importance of harmonised, robust ESG standards as well as a home-grown regional green mineral development fund. They also insisted technology transfers – another commitment cut from Cop30’s final text – must be “non-negotiable” for partners relying on the continent’s abundant mineral wealth to drive their own green industrialisation going forward.

Marit Kitaw, former director of the African Union’s Minerals Development Centre who appeared on the panel, framed the challenge in comments on LinkedIn: “Africa holds the mineral ingredients for the global energy transition. The question is: is Africa ready to lead, to bargain, to industrialise, and become a rule-maker?”

“[It’s] maybe the single most important reason for whatever success I’ve had,” he told the renowned Odd Lots podcast this week. “Meaning, it has given me an equanimity to step back, to see the arc, to accept there’s a life cycle.”

Dalio often describes major crises and events in terms of cycles, and he referenced meditation as the thing that lets him step outside himself long enough to see reality clearly, rather than get caught up in headlines. But in the Odd Lots interview, he also made clear what he does with that clarity: He uses it to map out cause-and-effect relationships. 

For Dalio, meditation creates the mental distance he needs to see events—markets, politics, human conflict—as linked chains rather than emotional shocks. That lens is so central to his worldview that he referenced it over and over:

“If you understand the cause-effect relationships … you can be ahead of the game. The causes happen before the effects.”

He talks about politics this way, too. Instead of seeing polarization as chaos, he thinks about the “mechanics” that produce it: incentives, cycles, interest groups, constraints. He isn’t judging them morally; he’s trying to understand how each variable begets the others.

Meditation, he says, is what lets him make that shift away from the instinct to react. 

“You align the subliminal and the intellectual mind … while still feeling the emotions, but being able to look down on them and ask: How does reality work?”

Dalio’s perspective echoes core Buddhist ideas far more than the conventional Wall Street training. In much of Buddhist thought, the world is a web of causes and conditions: pratītyasamutpāda, or dependent origination. Everything arises from something else, and clinging to how we wish things were is what creates suffering, rather than the event itself. Dalio doesn’t use Buddhist language, but he describes almost the same process: Don’t impose your preferences, don’t treat incidents as isolated, and don’t get trapped in your immediate emotional reaction.

On investors who meditate

Dalio isn’t the only investor who sees meditation as part of the job. Ivan Feinseth, another longtime research analyst, has practiced Transcendental Meditation since 1978, when Maharishi Mahesh Yogi—the leader of the movement—visited his New Jersey high school.

The routine Feinseth describes is simple: You sit, breathe, and repeat a mantra until your thoughts stop becoming intrusions and instead flow naturally, to the extent that you can observe them. The effect he describes is almost identical to Dalio’s. 

“It does center you and relax you and calm you,” Feinseth told Fortune. “I get answers to questions … Many times I’m thinking about something and, after I meditate, I’ve found a solution.” 

Sometimes it’s trivial, like realizing his neighbor could fix a garage door with a side-mounted motor that he remembered seeing years ago (“We do have an incredibly accurate memory”). Other times, it’s the structure of a major research report or the right way into a thorny market call.

“Once you start to relax, things become clearer,” he said. “Sometimes the best way to think about something is not thinking about something.”

Few professions blur emotion and logic like investing, Feinseth argued.

“People act emotionally and then use logic to justify an emotional reaction,” he said. Meditation doesn’t remove that dynamic, but it can help keep you from participating in it, especially during selloffs that are obviously out of step with fundamentals.

Research on mindfulness has shown mixed but meaningful effects on investor decision-making. A 2020 thesis on mindfulness and trading found no reduction in overconfidence and even higher anchoring among more mindful traders. However, a research brief from investment firm Addepar argues that mindfulness can interrupt biased, stress-driven reactions by shifting cognition from the amygdala to the prefrontal cortex, creating a pause before acting. 

In practice, mindfulness means noticing a fear response during a selloff without immediately selling; recognizing when a familiar narrative is shaping an investment thesis; or stepping back from recency-driven overconfidence. Meditation doesn’t eliminate biases, but it provides a structure for identifying and disrupting them, the authors argue. 

Dalio, it appears, would agree.

“Whatever success in life I’ve had,” Dalio said, “is more because I know how to deal with what I don’t know, than anything.”