今年COP30，的確比往年更「熱」。熱到 Blue Zone （藍區）真的都著火了。會場在 11 / 20 日下午突然傳出火警——燻黑天花板、代表團緊急疏散、談判桌前的文件被迫留在原地。對我個人而言，這場大火燒的地點相當敏感：正是在我應邀參與討論的 Blue Zone Side Event Hall。

然而，這把火真正值得關注的並不是消防隊 6 分鐘內撲滅的那場事故，而是背後象徵着主辦國與全球永續治理的巨大落差。我想，因為 COP30 的火，其實早在亞馬遜森林點燃了。

我在起火點
Blue Zone場中的「不可燃地帶」

今年，應邀到COP30 Blue Zone 針對World Green Skills Collaborative的 side event中，針對全球淨零、能源轉型、企業競爭力與科技文明的邏輯脈絡提出建議。我的演講可以概分三大重點。

首先，主要談到全球再生能源配置不均衡的結構問題。點出全球主要能源消耗區卻是再生能源建置量較少的區域；也是CO₂出口國的主要區域。相對於此，對再生能源發展度較高的國家或地區，如美國加州、印度、中國，反而出現供過於求（oversupply ）的狀況。

其次，我切入企業永續與科技文明發展的「不對稱難題」。主要談科技成熟速度，例如AI技術發展等，遠快於能源體系轉換速度的問題，這導致企業在淨零與成長間面臨結構性困局。

第三，是對氣候外交逐漸被包裝成「資源重新分配」的憂心。從 COP28、COP29而來，那種近乎白熱化談判的現象延伸到今年COP30，會中關於能源、碳市場、資金、技術的談判，本質上已經不只是減碳問題，更像國力競逐。

老實說，這些議題本身就夠複雜了，沒想到隔幾天Blue Zone 竟真的起火。這場火災雖無重大傷亡，卻象徵一個尷尬的真相：在全球最關注溫度上升的地方竟然起火了，而且火源還是在談淨零與能源安全的核心區域。儘管UNFCCC 很快封鎖場館、媒體迅速轉傳，…主辦國的執行力再度被推上國際檯面。

野心與執行落差
COP30真正挑戰不只在那場火警

巴西原希望藉COP30展現亞馬遜雨林守護者的定位，但實際呈現出的反差很大。在我看來巴西這樣的定位，蘊藏很大野心。巴西想藉大會強化在全球南方的話語權，特別是亞馬遜雨林議題與氣候融資上；可惜在大會安排與執行上卻極不相稱。

身處其中信手拈來包括：Blue Zone空調失效、會議動線混亂、重大展示館佈線不當造成短路、多國代表團反映後勤不足以及食物、交通、設備上的安排屢屢出現延誤。再加上火警，難怪現場國際社會中的民間人士甚至戲稱，這可能是巴黎協定以來最「火熱」的一次會議。這種落差，本質上反映出主辦國在國際氣候治理中的角色困境——雨林是全球的，但執行只能是主辦國的。

COP30外的野火
全球資源地緣政治角力的白熱化

 今年的談判，其實延續 COP29 的局勢，本質上依舊充滿張力。我認為主要可分為兩部分。第一，氣候變遷已成為各國爭奪資源的最大糖衣。不論是氣候融資（Climate Finance），還是 Article 6 的全球碳市場談判，本質都在回答一個問題：「未來的資源由誰分配？」

第二，氣候議題等同國力競爭的延伸。各國在 COP的每段文字、每條協議，都全力為自己後續的產業與出口與定位鋪路。例如：歐盟要推動CBAM、美國主打清潔能源補貼、日本聚焦氫能示範、沙國與其他產油國極力在淡化「化石燃料」這些字眼。今年草案甚至一度要立案刪除相關內容。

以上兩部分正映現出一個鮮明概念：氣候外交非但不是浪漫的國際合作，更是最現實的地緣政治角力。

示威遊行
比往年更尷尬的巴西貝倫舞台

今年COP30的示威遊行比往年更具象徵意義。遊行者用英文高喊：拯救亞馬遜（Save the Amazon）、停止生態滅絕（Stop Ecocide）、要求氣候正義（Climate Justice Now）；對坐落在亞馬遜雨林邊緣的會議主辦城市 Belem，我明顯感受到在地民眾期待 COP 帶來國際關注，卻同時對政府的資源投入政策與治理能力感到矛盾。

怎會這樣？我在當地的瞭解是，因為雨林仍在燃燒、非法濫伐仍在持續、土地開發與農業擴張的壓力，也從未停止。我彷彿看到，示威者正用行動提醒世界：COP 的火，只是雨林火勢的縮影。

COP31
兩個國家協同主辦的歷史性創舉

如果說COP30有什麼歷史性決議，我想是對COP31的安排，不但鮮明且是創舉。明年的主辦國為土耳其（Turkey）；主導國則為澳洲（Australia），沒錯，第一次由兩個國家協同舉辦。

這當然是一個極不尋常卻能反映國際關係現況的組合：土耳其連接歐亞、地緣政治敏感、能源樞紐；澳洲為南太平洋島鏈大國、關鍵礦產輸出國、能源轉型政策快速演變。COP31 的協同主辦大戲，未演先轟動。這樣的安排象徵氣候談判已不是單一國家所能負荷，而是跨區域權力演化的結果。

未來台灣
3大風險4動作比火更快的決心 

經過這幾天在COP30的參與、觀察與趨勢印證，UNFCCC已快速演化成全球資源分配的談判平台且明顯浮出檯面。誰缺席，誰就會被邊緣化。對台灣而言，我想這是極其關鍵的提醒。

未來10 年，台灣若不更積極參與國際能源與碳市場規則的形塑，將面臨3大風險：1. 出口市場受國際碳政策牽制（如 CBAM）2. 淨零轉型成本由外部制度決定，非自身選擇3. 國際供應鏈地位將被更積極的競爭國所取代。

更具體的說，全球資源競逐已臻白熱化，UNFCCC 是目前最具潛力形成共同規則的平台。台灣必須避免走上被邊緣化的道路。具體該怎麼做? 4個面向要快速動作。首先，要透過研究、企業合作、民間外交持續參與COP。其次，將永續與產業競爭力相結合。第三，加速建立自主碳市場與能源創新能力。最後，讓臺灣成為亞太地區的「制度理解者」與「技術提供者」。

COP30 的火雖然很快就被撲滅了，但真正的火刻正燒向全球永續治理的核心。雨林的火、能源的火、談判的火、政治的火。這些火，都不會因為那一夜的那場 Blue Zone 事件而停止；不管願不願意，台灣早已身在火線。臺灣需要的，是比火更快的決心。（本文由益珂環能同步譯成英文並見刊於英國）

延伸閱讀

• COP30氣候金融 周家豪倡生態貨幣
• COP30：從全球談判到永續嘉年華
• 走進地球之肺 COP30正構築永續契機
• 前瞻碳市場整合 周家豪COP29談做法
• 從科技戰到氣候戰 企業避險15大武器

--

The Fire at COP30 Was Actually Lit Long Ago in the Amazon Rain-forest

By Howard Chou｜Founder, EcoStrategy

COP30 this year was undeniably “hotter” than ever—so hot that even the Blue Zone literally caught on fire.

On the afternoon of November 20, smoke suddenly billowed through the conference venue. Ceilings were blackened, delegates rushed to evacuate, and negotiation documents were left scattered on the tables.

For me, the fire felt especially surreal—it erupted precisely in the Blue Zone Side Event Hall where I had just been invited to speak.Yet the fire itself—swiftly extinguished within six minutes—is not what deserves our deepest attention.

What matters is what it symbolized: the widening gap between the ambitions of the host nation and the reality of global sustainability governance. Because the fire at COP30 had actually been ignited long ago in the Amazon rain-forest.

At the Ignition Point:
The “Non-Flammable Zone” That Caught Fire

This year, I was invited to speak in the COP30 Blue Zone at the World Green Skills Collaborative side event, addressing the logic and tensions behind global net-zero pathways, energy transitions, corporate competitiveness, and technological civilization.

My key points included:

1. Structural imbalances in global renewable-energy deployment
   The regions that consume the most energy are often those with the lowest renewable-energy installations—and are major net exporters of CO₂.Meanwhile, countries with higher renewable penetration (California, India, China) are facing oversupply pressures.

2. The asymmetric dilemma between sustainability and technological acceleration
   Technological maturity—such as AI—advances far faster than the transformation pace of energy systems, trapping enterprises between net-zero obligations and growth demands.

3. Climate diplomacy has become a vehicle for resource redistribution
   From COP28 to COP29 and now COP30, negotiations on energy, carbon markets, finance, and technology are no longer purely about emissions—they are expressions of geopolitical power.

These topics were already complex enough, and then—days later—the Blue Zone literally caught fire. Although no major injuries occurred, the incident exposed an uncomfortable reality:

The place most concerned about rising temperatures caught fire—right in the core of the net-zero and energy-security discussions.

Even though the UNFCCC swiftly sealed the venue and international media amplified the incident, Brazil’s execution capacity once again became the center of global scrutiny.

Ambition vs. Execution:
COP30’s Real Challenge Was Not the Fire Alarm

Brazil had hoped COP30 would showcase its position as the “guardian of the Amazon.” What emerged instead was a stark contrast.

1. The ambition was enormous:
   Brazil sought to strengthen its leadership in the Global South, especially on Amazon conservation and climate finance.

2. But execution was deeply asymmetric:
   Issues included:

• Blue Zone air-conditioning failures
• Chaotic venue routing
• Electrical short circuits in major exhibit halls
• Repeated complaints about inadequate logistics
• Delays in food, transportation, and equipment arrangements

With the fire added to the list, civil society began joking:

“This may be the hottest COP since the Paris Agreement—literally.”
This mismatch fundamentally reflects the host nation’s dilemma in climate governance:
The rainforest belongs to the world,but execution is the responsibility of the nation.

**The Bigger Fire Outside COP30:
A Geopolitical Struggle for Global Resources**

Continuing the tensions from COP29, this year’s negotiations remained highly charged.

1.Climate change has become the sweetest coating for resource competition
Whether climate finance or Article 6 carbon-market negotiations, the essential question is: “Who allocates future global resources?”

2.Climate policy = an extension of national power
Every line in a COP text serves as a strategic foothold for industrial and trade positioning.
Examples:

• EU advancing CBAM
• The U.S. leveraging clean-energy subsidies
• Japan focusing on hydrogen demonstrations
• Saudi Arabia and oil-producing nations pushing to minimize—if not delete—the term “fossil fuels” from negotiation drafts

Climate diplomacy is far from idealistic cooperation. It is geopolitics—at its most pragmatic.

Protests:
Belem as an Embarrassing Stage

This year’s climate marches carried heightened symbolism. Protesters chanted:

• “Save the Amazon”
• “Stop Ecocide”
• “Climate Justice Now”

The host city, Belem, sits at the edge of the Amazon rain-forest.

Local residents hoped for global attention—but also questioned whether the government could truly manage the pressures accompanying it.

Why? Because the fires continue.Illegal logging continues.Land expansion and agricultural encroachment have never abated.

Protesters sent a simple message: The fire at COP is only a reflection of the fire in the rain-forest.

COP 31:
The First COP in History Co-Hosted by Two Countries

COP31 will be unprecedented: Host Country: Turkey；Lead Country: Australia。A dual-nation COP—a world first. This unusual arrangement mirrors the realities of current global politics:

• Turkey: a Eurasian bridge, geopolitical pivot, energy corridor
• Australia: an Indo-Pacific power, major critical-mineral exporter, rapidly evolving energy-transition policies

The co-hosting signals a larger truth:Climate negotiations have outgrown the capacity of any single nation and now reflect cross-regional power evolution.

**Conclusion:
COP Has Become a Battlefield of Resource Redistribution—Can Taiwan Afford to Be Absent?**

My observations at COP30 confirm a visible trend: UNFCCC is gradually becoming the global platform for resource allocation.Those who are absent will be marginalized.

For Taiwan, the implications over the next decade are profound.

If Taiwan does not actively participate in shaping international rules on energy and carbon markets, we face three major risks:

1. Export competitiveness constrained by foreign carbon policies (e.g., CBAM)
2. Net-zero costs dictated externally rather than by domestic choices
3. Losing supply-chain advantages to more proactive competitors

Beyond that:

The global contest for resources has already intensified. UNFCCC remains the only place where nations still negotiate common rules.

Taiwan must therefore:

• Engage continuously through research, enterprise partnerships, and civil diplomacy
• Integrate sustainability with industrial competitiveness
• Build our own carbon-market mechanisms and energy-innovation capabilities
• Become a regional “system interpreter” and “technology provider” in the Asia-Pacific

This is the only path to avoid marginalization.

Postscript

The fire at COP30 has been extinguished.But the real fires—of the rain-forest, of energy insecurity, of geopolitical negotiations—continue to spread. These fires will not fade because one Blue Zone hall was evacuated.

Taiwan is already standing in the flame zone. What we need now is a resolve that burns faster than the fire itself.