Global climate losses have climbed past $400 billion a year. And while Tesla now extracts enough lithium to build more than 1.8 million electric cars annually, the world still struggles to answer a simple question: are we actually healing the planet, or just shifting the damage somewhere out of sight?

If the Earth were a patient lying on a doctor’s table, what would the diagnosis look like today? Would a doctor gently say, "You’re doing fine,” or would she lean in and say what no one wants to hear: "Your vital signs are failing. You need serious treatment ⁠–⁠ now.”

I lean toward the latter. Whether we choose to admit it or not, the planet is showing the symptoms of a system under severe stress – climate, biodiversity, freshwater, food security and even the global economy are all connected organs in the same body. And COP30, held in Belem, was where the world gathered to decide whether we would finally act like responsible doctors ... or keep pretending the patient will recover on her own.

For decades, we’ve done the easy part: we’ve made declarations, signed communiques, and launched glossy campaigns. What we haven’t done is the hard part, the part that requires courage, money and political cost.

So the real question at COP30 becomes painfully clear: Did the global leaders finally act, or did they once again protect the billionaires, corporations, and comfort zones that have shaped the climate narrative for too long?

World in rough shape at COP30

The numbers alone tell a story that no diplomat can soften: 2023 was the hottest year ever recorded. Temperatures have already breached 1.5 degrees Celsius in several months. Climate disasters cost over $400 billion each year. Pakistan’s floods displaced 26 million people. Heatwaves cost India $159 billion in productivity. Global food losses from climate shocks reached $29 billion. And the United Nations’ latest assessment warns that we are still on track for 2.5-2.9 degrees Celsius of warming.

These are not "risks.” These show our future with systemic breakdowns.

This is why COP30 and future climate summits should not be treated as mere diplomatic rituals. COP30 was a stress test for global climate leadership, perhaps the most important one in years.

Corporate paradox: Progress or pressure

We cannot talk about climate policy today without talking about the companies that shape it –⁠ not just oil producers, but tech giants and battery manufacturers.

Tesla transformed the electric vehicle market, but its supply chains stretch into regions already under pressure from mining. Apple is pushing for "carbon-neutral” products, yet its mineral extraction alone emits over 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Amazon (the company) emits more carbon dioxide than some entire countries, with 71.27 million metric tons in one year. Google and Microsoft’s AI infrastructure may consume as much electricity as a small European nation within a decade.

These are not "anti-progress” criticisms. They’re reminders of a truth often lost beneath marketing slogans: You can electrify the economy without decarbonizing it.

If the minerals, energy and water behind "green” products come at the cost of ecosystems and communities, then the transition is only half a transition.

This is where COP30 needed to step in – not to stop innovation, but to guide it.

Tough conversation everyone avoids

Every climate summit eventually circles back to one topic: money. Who pays, how much, and for what?

This year, negotiators worked on a new global finance target: $300 billion per year by 2030, rising to $1-1.3 trillion by mid-century.

Yet the International Energy Agency says bluntly that we need $4.6 trillion each year for a real transition. That gap is not a minor policy issue, it’s the whole problem.

The unfairness within the system is striking: Only 2% of climate finance reaches small farmers, and less than 1% reaches indigenous communities that protect most of the world’s biodiversity. Moreover, the famous "$100 billion pledge" from developed countries was never fully delivered.

It’s hard to build trust when the people protecting forests receive pennies, while companies and consultants receive millions.

Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim captured this truth with painful clarity: "We are the ones doing the job on the ground, but less than one per cent of climate finance reaches us.”

Tiredness of ambiguity

Strikingly, even the private sector is asking for clearer rules.

Jesper Brodin, CEO of Ingka Group (IKEA), put it this way: "We need policymakers to listen – really listen – and work with us, not around us.”

Corporations want clarity, investors wish for predictability, communities want justice, and scientists want urgency. COP30 was where these demands must have converged or even clashed.

Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue; it is a financial and social one. Crops fail, cities overheat, insurance markets collapse, migration rises and water becomes political. Adaptation is no longer a "nice-to-have,” it is economic survival. Countries need support for cooling infrastructure, water security, early warning systems, and climate-safe housing, not in 2035, but now.

A transition that harms vulnerable communities is not a transition at all. It’s a transfer of risk from the powerful to the powerless.

Did COP30 deliver its promises?

For COP30 and future summits to mean anything, they must first deliver a finance system that actually works – one that is fast, fair, and genuinely accessible, not another stack of pledges lost in paperwork. It must also confront the uncomfortable truth that many so-called "green” products still rely on dirty extraction; Tesla, Apple, Amazon and the AI giants need real oversight, not applause. Adaptation, too, cannot remain framed as charity but as an economic necessity, because climate shocks are now directly translating into financial shocks for countries and communities. And finally, accountability must go far beyond carbon credits. The world doesn’t need another layer of green gloss. It needs transparency, integrity and impact that can be measured in reality, not in press releases.

In light of all these, the real question that comes to mind as COP30 concludes is not diplomatic, but moral: Did this summit strengthen the people and ecosystems holding the world together, or did it once again protect the billionaires shaping the transition from afar? The world is waiting for the answer.