The text is also relatively good for indigenous rights, including the first acknowledgement of tribes in voluntary isolation. It also featured distinct progress on loss and damages.

Nonetheless, it has provided a few points of light. The reaffirmation of the importance of keeping 1.5C in reach, implicitly even when it may be temporarily exceeded, is good, but relatively toothless. The need for more on how and who would pay for this is essential going forwards.

Yes, it's pretty undeniable that they've made huge unforced errors (see also the oil decision apnews.com/article/braz...). We will see if the net effect is good or bad in a few weeks time.

By this measure, nothing else has made any difference either. But there are more precise metrics that show other stories, e.g. emissions per capita are descending. COPs have been woefully insufficient, but the question we pose here is "are they better than nothing", and the answer is "probably".

These feedbacks are real, however bear in mind that there are also substantial net negative feedbacks, which largely cancel them in our best estimates. There's some uncertainty but even signs of larger than expected feedbacks don't change this picture that much e.g. www.cell.com/one-earth/fu...

Modelling global total GHG emissions given (current) NDCs and policy.

No, it's the high, medium and low estimates of current policies and conditional/unconditional NDCs economically modelled to 2035 then extended in a variety of ways.

We do a lot of other stuff so I've done a longer writeup here: scienceisshiny.wordpress.com/2025/11/06/h... and the main paper is here again: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...

Thanks to coauthors @setupelz.bsky.social and @dralaaclimate.bsky.social for ushering this through in time!

4) If COPs make markets think about the environment, but not about what a sustainable society involves, we expect a premium for companies considered individually green (which we estimate with ESG ratings from Sustainalytics). We see a strong effect here!

3) If COPs are useless, or entirely predictable, markets shouldn’t notice them. If they’re actively greenwashing, FF stocks should grow. We don’t see these things. Some hope!

2) If COPs sometimes signal more climate action and sometimes less, we expect market volatility in transition-relevant sectors to rise, but not necessarily changes in the average stock price. We see slightly raised market volatility in general, but not specific to these sectors.

While there are many ways we can tackle climate change (varying levels of demand reduction, nuclear power etc.), almost all involve much less FF and more REs. Sadly we see weak signs of FF falls (not robust between different statistical approaches), no sign of RE rising.

We considered several possibilities:
1) If governments often show trustworthy signals of higher climate action during COPs, the stock prices of renewable energy (RE) companies should rise and that of fossil fuels (FFs) should fall.

TL;DR: COPs move stocks, but not in the way you might hope. COPs strongly benefit green-rated stocks, but have only mild signs of harming fossil fuels (though getting stronger) and no sign of benefiting renewables (and getting worse).