From shifts in power dynamics to avoiding potential ‘bully-like’ behaviour, discover the repercussions of the US’s absence at COP30
By
According to Trump, climate change is a ‘hoax’. Unsurprisingly, then, neither the US President – nor any federal delegates – have represented the US at COP30, the major annual conference on international climate policy attended by more than 200 countries.
This year, the conference is hosted in Belém, Brazil – a location on the fringes of the Amazon rainforest, a region reeling from the impacts of a warming planet. Already, 17 to 20 per cent of the Amazon has been destroyed, and models predict the rainforest is nearing a tipping point. Once reached, it may no longer be able to sustain itself, catalysing a host of problems from a massive release of stored carbon to widespread biodiversity loss.
Enjoying this article? Check out our related reads:
You would think these facts alone would be enough to stir the US – one of the planet’s biggest emitters – into taking action and attending COP30. Yet, an empty seat remains for the nation, and a clear message from the White House: ‘President Trump will not jeopardise our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.’
So, the question arises: what impact does an absent US have upon COP30? Without one of the major nations in attendance, can other countries begin to gain from the power vacuum it leaves behind?
A pocket-book history
This isn’t the first time that the US has thrown doubts and objections over climate policy. As political parties have changed hands across the years, support for climate policies have remained in flux in the nation, including Bush’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol back in 2001.
Take the Paris Agreement, as another example. First adopted at COP21 back in December 2015, the Paris Agreement was signed by the US under the Obama administration. But despite the threat posed by leaving climate change effectively unattended, Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement back in 2017. Although the Democrats reversed this in 2021, Trump signed an executive order to quit the ‘unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip off’ earlier this year, just hours after being inaugurated.
Once formalised, the US will join three others – Iran, Libya and Yemen – as being outside of the international pact created to lower greenhouse gas emissions and halt global warming below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
In recent months, the US has also attempted to force its partner countries to buy more US oil and gas, including nations such as Japan, Europe and other trading partners. Unlike during his first term – when Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement but still sent delegates to annual UN climate talks – some analysts now believe the president wants to ‘render them ineffective and starved of purpose’ by turning as many other countries as possible from their own clean energy goals.
A disruptor at COP30?
According to lead climate negotiator Todd Stern, the US has already hit a ‘nadir more hostile than during Trump’s first term’ in terms of support for climate policy. For Stern, though, the US’s involvement in COP30 could potentially be more damaging than good. ‘I don’t think they would add anything useful. This is a much more aggressive administration now, across the board,’ said Stern.
The US’s presence at COP30 could have repeated scenes seen in a London conference last month, where nations came together to finalise a small levy on greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. US representatives at the talk were accused of using ‘bully-like’ behaviour to encourage countries to drop the plan. Some reports suggest representatives were issuing threats of higher fees for docking in US ports, as well as visa restrictions upon US travel for negotiators and their families.
With Trump demanding the measure be blocked, such tactics seemed to be effective: the pollution fee is now delayed for at least a year after negotiators ceded to US pressure. The decision comes after ten years of effort to enforce the fee.
‘I think if you allow yourself to be intimidated by this administration, they will seize all the ground that you cede them, and then come back for more,’ said Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse. ‘It’s only when you stop and fight and push back that you have a chance.’
Shifting centres
With the US largely absent from the negotiations table, emerging economies – such as Brazil, Indonesia and India – are able to show and potentially implement their climate agendas without being constrained by those suggested by the US.
As such, older models of thinking, whereby developed countries fix the problem and developing countries follow along, are quickly being challenged by such nations stepping forward with their own climate policies. For these countries, the US’s absence leaves a power vacuum that can be filled by innovative climate action.
For example, Brazil has proposed a new forest fund – the Tropical Forests Forever Facility – designed to reward countries for keeping their forests standing. Using satellite monitoring standards and systems, tropical nations can continue to receive funding per hectare of viable forest they maintain, with payments decreasing if any deforestation or fire-related forest degradation occur.
It isn’t just the US that is shifting away from ambitious climate policies, though. In the wake of rising right-wing parties coming to power in the EU, resistance has begun to emerge to the extensive action of the European Commission. According to the Yale School of the Environment, one sign of the EU’s ‘internal troubles’ was its failure to agree its own mitigation targets before the informal deadline of 30 September ahead of COP30.
Ultimately, in the wake of a ‘coherent West’, the Global South could continue to push harder on topics such as loss and damage, forest finance, just transitions and equitable supply chains.
As well as this, the US’s absence allows other powers, such as the US and China, to shape regulatory instruments and climate policy with less negotiation over US priorities. In the case of China, the nation could continue to stabilise its climate leadership, even with less decarbonisation ambition than it currently has. Currently, China stands as the world’s biggest producer of solar panels – 80 per cent of global supply – as well as electric vehicles (70 per cent of global supply). If it continues on this trajectory, the US may be a significant way behind in a booming industry.
An empty seat
So, it appears that COP30 will pass by with little to no interference from the US. What this means for the conference is a chance for other major nations to step up to the plate, showcasing their climate policies. A COP30 without the US also means, potentially, a smoother run – an avoidance of ‘bully-like’ behaviour seen displayed by US representatives in recent climate conferences might make for a more collaborative and productive two weeks.
Ultimately, the absence of one of the key global players leaves a wide gap in its wake. What fills that space remains to be seen – a question that will become clearer over the coming fortnight.
