What if the Real Story of COP30 Isn’t in the Final Text?
In my last Thinking Aloud, I wrote about curiosity as a strategy — a way to see differently and ask the right “what if…?” questions when the complexity around us feels overwhelming.
Listening to a recent episode of the Constructive Voices podcast about COP30 in Brazil, I found myself returning to that idea. I’d heard the headlines about failure, stalemate, and disagreement. But as I listened, a different thought emerged:
What if the real significance of this COP wasn’t in the negotiating rooms at all — but in the curiosity it unlocked?
And if that’s true… what would future COPs look like?
So often, COPs are measured by the final text: what was agreed, what was watered down, what one country refused. Those headlines dominate the news cycle, fuelling a narrative that “we failed,” “we can’t do this,” or even “climate change isn’t real.” And yes, the language on fossil fuels matters — of course it does. But what if that’s only one layer of the story?
What if we don’t let it become the full stop at the end of the story of our life on this beautiful planet?
What if the most important outcomes were happening outside the negotiations?
This COP took place in the Amazon — a landscape where you can’t avoid the realities of globally driven extraction as well as the restoration of destroyed ecosystems, livelihoods, or possibility. Delegates weren’t just comparing paragraphs; they had the opportunity to meet communities, walk through forests, and witness new forms of the bioeconomy emerging in real time.
And that made me curious:
- What shifts in thinking happen when policymakers see restoration at industrial scale?
- What questions emerge when food systems diversify right in front of you?
- What becomes possible when forests are treated as core infrastructure, not scenery?
Tim Christophersen, interviewed by Jackie on the podcast, has been to around fifteen COPs. He said this one felt different — not because every word landed perfectly, but because you could sense new ways of thinking taking root.
What if this COP showcased how countries can collaborate differently?
One moment that caught my attention was Denmark and Brazil working together on forest policy. It’s a reminder that environmental solutions rarely sit neatly within borders or silos. They emerge at the intersections — ecological, social, political, economic – and amongst future thinkers and people comfortable with change and uncertainty.
In other words, they emerge from curiosity.
Curiosity about how another country does things.
Curiosity about what can be restored, not just protected.
Curiosity about what becomes possible when we stop reacting to political headwinds and start imagining the next decade instead.
What if future COPs were fuelled less by caution and more by curiosity?
It’s easy to focus on the countries voting against fossil fuel reductions. But what if the real momentum sits elsewhere — with those asking different questions?
Questions like:
- What if climate action were led by ecopreneurs turning restoration into real livelihoods?
- What if coalitions were built on shared ambition, not shared interests?
- What new stories about forests, food, cities and infrastructure are emerging — and how do we communicate and share this learning?
These questions feel alive. They feel like the start of something. They feel like curiosity doing its real work: shifting perspective just enough to reveal new possibilities.
So, what might the next COP look like through a lens of curiosity?
Maybe future delegates won’t just negotiate; they’ll explore. And we revisit who needs to be in the room. Who has the quietest voices?
Maybe the side events need to become central — the ecopreneur stories, Indigenous leadership, restoration projects.
Maybe the energy won’t be dominated by what one country refuses, but by what dozens of others are quietly building.
What if, instead of ending with “what didn’t we achieve?”, we left asking:
“What have we seen here that changes what we can do next?”
That question feels more generative.
More honest.
More aligned with the world we’re trying to shape.
Curiosity doesn’t replace climate policy — but it can transform it.
It helps us notice emerging patterns.
It helps us see how ideas travel across continents.
It helps us imagine what might be possible before it becomes politically safe.
And it reminds us that environmental transformation often begins not in agreements, but in conversations, experiences, and sparks of imagination.
I’ll be exploring more of these “what if…” questions in future posts — from the rise of the bioeconomy to shifting land-use mindsets, and how AI might reshape environmental strategy.
But for now, I’ll leave you with the question that has stayed with me since listening to the podcast:
What if the real story of COP30 isn’t in the final text at all — but in the curiosity it seeded?
If this resonates, challenges, or opens something up for you, we’d love to hear it.
https://constructive-voices.com/cop30-outcomes-the-rise-of-the-bioeconomy/