A contentious proposal for a “fossil fuel transition roadmap” (TAFF) has ignited one of the fiercest political clashes at COP30, with Global South negotiators and civil society accusing major Western governments — and parts of the international media — of advancing a distorted narrative that blames developing countries for blocking ambition.
The controversy escalated after some international media outlets framed Saudi Arabia and the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) as the key obstacles to a fossil fuel deal. But developing-country negotiators and experts say this storyline is both inaccurate and politically convenient, obscuring deeper concerns about process, equity and finance.
At a fiery press briefing on November 21 by the Demand Climate Justice (DCJ)— hours after the COP30 Presidency released a new Mutirão draft that omits the TAFF roadmap — civil society leaders pushed back strongly.
“The scapegoating of Saudi Arabia and the Like-Minded is nothing new,” said Meena Raman of the Third World Network during a Demand Climate Justice (DCJ) briefing. “This roadmap came out of nowhere without negotiation. It has never been part of a negotiated outcome.”
She added that many African and Latin American countries also confronted the COP30 Presidency, asking why the roadmap had been introduced without mandate or consultation.
Developing nations argue that inserting such a roadmap into a formal UNFCCC outcome — without clarity on funding or implementation — would impose commitments they cannot deliver.
“For a large number of countries, there is no roadmap for finance,” Raman noted. “Even the technology implementation programme has no recognition of the finance required. How do you transition away from fossil fuels with no means to implement it?”
Her assessment was echoed by Brandon Wu of ActionAid, who recalled that similar concerns were raised in Dubai.
“It’s not just Saudi Arabia,” he said. “Most of the Africa Group has concerns. They’ve said clearly: they want a fossil fuel phaseout, but it is political and economic suicide to promise one without knowing finance and support will come from the Global North.”
He also highlighted the contradiction in US leadership rhetoric: “Even before Trump, the US already had the largest oil and gas expansion plans of any country in the world.”
Asad Rehman of Friends of the Earth International sharpened the critique further: “Roadmaps that only focus on emissions or big phaseout language are roadmaps to nowhere. The key to ambition is finance. The key to a just transition is finance. The key to a fossil phaseout is finance.”
Without guaranteed, adequate and predictable support from developed countries, he said, no transition at the required speed or scale is possible. Supporting the Colombian Plan, he added, would be one meaningful step — because it recognises debt distress, the need for diversification, and the centrality of public finance to enable countries to exit fossil fuels.
“We all campaign to end the addiction to fossil fuels,” he said. “But people have a right to live with dignity. We have to do both.”
Lidi Nacpil of APMDD warned that the resurfacing of the North–South blame narrative threatens to distort the negotiations.
“This is supposed to be a COP of truth,” she said. “This is a vital example of false news. The familiar story — the Global North as climate champions and the Global South as blockers — is not new. But we must scratch beneath the surface and tell the truth.”
Amid the turbulence, Colombia provided one of the clearest substantive updates, reiterating that a fossil fuel phaseout is “inevitable” and outlining political moves outside the UNFCCC to advance it.
Backed by more than 80 countries through the Belem Declaration, Colombia announced it will co-host the first International Conference on Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels with the Netherlands in Santa Marta in April 2026. The conference will explore legal, economic and social pathways for phaseout, including diversification, trade impacts, subsidy reform, renewable deployment and labour transitions. Colombia emphasised that momentum is coming both from governments and grassroots movements, even as UN negotiations remain gridlocked over finance.
Civil society leaders argue that the real barrier to a fossil fuel phaseout is not a lack of political will from developing nations but the absence of predictable, adequate finance from developed countries — even as these same countries continue expanding fossil fuel production.
The DCJ coalition said attempts to shift blame onto LMDCs divert attention from the fact that the United States is the world’s largest oil and gas expansion economy, while Europe continues approving new fossil infrastructure.
“If the world wants a genuine fossil fuel roadmap, why aren’t developed countries producing one?” a DCJ speaker asked. “The Dubai decision calls for a just, orderly and equitable transition. The Paris Agreement says developed countries must take the lead. Yet this is not reflected in their NDCs.”
“Why come here, pretend to be climate champions and blame others?” she added. “This is a blame game we cannot have. You cannot sell a transition when there is no money for it.”
As COP30 heads into its final stretch, the TAFF roadmap has become a symbol of the larger struggle over equity, responsibility and feasibility. While political declarations supporting phaseout — including Brazil’s own — continue gaining traction, developing nations say they cannot be asked to endorse pathways that lack the means of implementation.
With finance unresolved and major emitters still expanding fossil fuels, negotiators warn that scapegoating will not deliver outcomes. What remains clear is that COP30 has forced a harder conversation: ambition must be matched by finance, and narratives must reflect the reality of who is transitioning — and who is still expanding.