Climate agenda reset ahead of Brazil's COP 30
THE climate diplomacy agenda has been badly on the backfoot since at least November's US presidential ballot which saw the re-election of Donald Trump. However, this Wednesday and Thursday (May 7-8), Europe hosts what may be the biggest meeting of climate ministers before November's Conference of the Parties (COP) 30 in Brazil to try to kickstart this key business and political agenda.
The Brazilian president-designate of COP 30, Andre Correa do Lago, will co-host this week's event in Copenhagen. This is an inauspicious geographical backdrop given that almost two decades ago, the same city hosted one of the worst ever organised COPs. So much so that the then-US secretary of state Hillary Clinton told then-US president Barack Obama, upon his arrival at the-then COP 15 in Denmark, that it was 'the worst meeting I've been to since eighth grade student council' of 13-14 years olds.
Fast-forward to 2025, and with their backs to the wall, Correa do Lago and Danish counterpart Lars Aagaard will seek to energise the summit of more than 40 climate ministers – ahead of COP 30. The latter is the most important annual climate event since at least Glasgow's COP 26 in 2021, and possibly even the landmark Paris COP 21 in 2015.
It is not just the developments on the political right, including the re-election of Trump, that are helping shatter the previous political consensus on tackling climate change. There is wider alarm as highlighted by a report last week by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Diplomacy. As much as ex-UK prime minister Blair was a champion of climate diplomacy in office from 1997 to 2007 as leader of the left-of-centre Labour Party, he warns in the study that 'today's policy strategies have become disconnected from political, public and economic reality', and the debate is 'riven with irrationality'.
While climate activism has succeeded in raising awareness, Blair argues that the result is a widening credibility gap between policy and delivery. He highlights that global trends that undermine today's Western climate approach include that fossil fuel use is set to rise further up to 2030, airline travel is projected to double over the next 20 years, and by 2030 almost two-thirds of emissions will come from China, India and South-east Asia.
Add to this too the setback of COP 29 in Azerbaijan, widely seen as the worst annual climate conference since Copenhagen in 2009. The event was widely seen as kicking the can down the road, if not going backwards, with the summit threatening to collapse several times.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
As former US vice-president Al Gore highlighted about the Azerbaijan event, 'we cannot continue to rely on last-minute half measures. Leaders today shirk their responsibility by focusing on long-term, aspirational goals that extend far beyond their own terms in office. To meet the challenge of our time, we need real action at the scale of months and years, not decades and quarter-centuries.'
So, with the entire COP process now in growing jeopardy, Brazil has the diplomatic challenge of a lifetime seeking to make its event later this year one that helps ensure long-lasting and transformative climate outcomes.
With Trump having already started the clock on a four-year US withdrawal process from the 2015 Paris treaty, as he did during his first presidency from 2017 to 2021, other major nations will probably dust down the playbook they used during that period. This saw other powers including Europe, Japan and China seeking to advance climate diplomacy, and hoping that the next US president from 2021 to 2025 would recommit to the Paris process.
Fortunately, this happened upon the election of Joe Biden as US president. However, whether it happens a second time will depend upon whether a Democrat can win the 2028 election against the Republican who becomes Trump's successor as the Republican standard-bearer.
At the same time, world powers will be aware that US corporations, states and cities will continue with the clean energy revolution that has been underway for many years now across the world's largest national economy. Trump's policies may blunt this tide of investment in the short to medium term, but it is likely to prove unstoppable in the longer term.
It is not just many US liberal and centrist politicians who favour remaining in Paris, but also much of the nation's business community too. Many US multinationals – including in the energy sector – argue that it is better for Washington to keep a seat at the table and influence an accord that big US-headquartered businesses may ultimately have to abide by after the Trump presidency ends anyway.
The business community is aware that the Paris deal retains significant support across the world. In addition, it intentionally has a flexible, 'bottom-up' approach and this greater decentralisation and suppleness provides resilience, as was shown from 2017 to 2021.
While the wisdom of this flexible architecture appears obvious, it represents a breakthrough from the more rigid, top-down Kyoto framework. While Kyoto worked in 1997 for the 37 developed countries and the European Union states which agreed to it, a different way of working was needed for the much more complex Paris deal, which includes more than 170 diverse developing and developed states that agreed in 2015 to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
By design, the agreement allows countries to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to develop bespoke plans to realise emissions targets with national and sub-national governments in cities and regions working in partnership with business. In other words, while Paris created a global architecture for tackling global warming, it recognises that diverse, often decentralised policies are required by different types of economies to meet climate commitments, including in US states and cities.
That this approach makes sense is reflected in the diversity of climate actions that countries have made in response to global warming. As the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics has highlighted, these thousands of measures (legislative, executive actions and policies) globally range from economy wide measures to reduce emissions through to specific targets for renewable energy, energy demand, transportation or land-use, land-use change and forestry.
So as deeply damaging as Trump's presidency will be to the climate agenda, the Paris framework could still provide a resilient, flexible framework for action that remains a lasting foundation stone of future sustainable development across the world. The best way to tackle climate change, going forward, will continue to be a flexible, bottom-up approach to meet targets in innovative ways.
The writer is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNA
36 minutes ago
- CNA
Iran to present counter-proposal to US, Trump says talks to resume
WASHINGTON: Iran said on Monday (Jun 9) it will soon hand a counter-proposal for a nuclear deal to the United States in response to a US offer that Tehran deems "unacceptable", while US President Donald Trump said talks would continue. Trump made clear that the two sides remained at odds over whether the country would be allowed to continue enriching uranium on Iranian soil. "They're just asking for things that you can't do. They don't want to give up what they have to give up," Trump told reporters at the White House. "They seek enrichment. We can't have enrichment." Earlier, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran was preparing a counter-offer to the US proposal that was presented in late May. He said there was no detail about the timing of a sixth round of talks. While Trump said the next round of talks would take place on Thursday, a senior Iranian official and a US official said Thursday was unlikely. Following Trump's remarks, Baghaei said "based on recent consultations, the next round of Iran–US indirect negotiations is being planned for next Sunday in Muscat", according to the ministry's Telegram channel. The US official said the talks, led by US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, could be on Friday or Sunday, possibly in Oman or Oslo. "The US proposal is not acceptable to us. It was not the result of previous rounds of negotiations. We will present our own proposal to the other side via Oman after it is finalised. This proposal is reasonable, logical, and balanced," Baghaei said. "We must ensure before the lifting of sanctions that Iran will effectively benefit economically and that its banking and trade relations with other countries will return to normal." Reuters previously reported that Tehran was drafting a negative response to the US proposal. An Iranian diplomat said the US offer failed to resolve differences over uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, the shipment abroad of Iran's entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium and reliable steps to lift US sanctions. Last week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the US proposal as against Iran's interests, pledging to continue enrichment on Iranian soil, which Western powers view as a potential pathway to building nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes. Trump said Iran was the main topic of a phone conversation he had on Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu's office said the president had told him talks with Iran would continue at the end of the week. During his first term in 2018, Trump ditched a 2015 nuclear pact between Iran and six powers and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond that pact's limits. Iran says the West has turned a blind eye to Israel's nuclear programme even while pushing against Iran's. Israel neither confirms nor denies that it has nuclear weapons. Baghaei said sensitive Israeli documents, which Iran has previously promised to unveil, would demonstrate "that parties constantly questioning Iran's peaceful nuclear programme actively work to strengthen Israel's military nuclear programme".

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County. PHOTO: REUTERS Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests? President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the US government. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 9 mobilised 700 active duty Marines as part of the government's response to the protests. California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom's command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the deployment? Mr Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the US is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. What are national guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What does California's lawsuit say? California National Guard troops and police officers stand guard as people attend a rally against federal immigration sweeps in Los Angeles on June 9. PHOTO: REUTERS California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion', no 'invasion' and no situation that prevented the enforcement of US laws in the state. Mr Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard 'shall be issued through the governors of the States', according to the lawsuit. What is the lawsuit asking for? The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Mr Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced. How might a court view the dispute? There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only ever been invoked once before to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organisations cast doubt on Mr Trump's use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Governor Newsom's support. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Governor Newsom's interpretation of the governor's role under Section 12406. Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word 'shall' in interpreting other laws, which supports Governor Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. What other laws could Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other US military troops? Mr Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Senior White House officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term 'insurrection' when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the US in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Protesters clash with law enforcement in the streets surrounding the federal building in Los Angeles on June 8. PHOTO: AFP The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat black motorist Rodney King. But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What about the Marines? Mr Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. But unless Mr Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in 'any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity'. The Defence Department said on June 9 that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
The White House wants 90 trade deals in 90 days, may have 1 so far
US President Donald Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pack with Britain, which is not one of America's biggest trading partners. PHOTO: REUTERS The White House wants 90 trade deals in 90 days, may have 1 so far WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump has announced wave after wave of tariffs since taking office in January, part of a sweeping effort that he has argued would secure better trade terms with other countries. 'It's called negotiation,' he recently said. In April, administration officials vowed to sign trade deals with as many as 90 countries in 90 days. The ambitious target came after Mr Trump announced, and then rolled back a portion of, steep tariffs that in some cases meant import taxes cost more than the wholesale price of a good itself. The 90-day goal, however, is one-tenth of the time it usually takes to reach a trade deal, according to a New York Times analysis of major agreements with the United States currently in effect, raising questions about how realistic the administration's target may be. It typically takes 917 days, or roughly two and a half years, for a trade deal to go from initial talks to the president's desk for signature, the analysis shows. Roughly 60 days into the current process, Mr Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pact with Britain, which is not one of America's biggest trading partners. He has also suggested that negotiations with China have been rocky. 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 4. China and the United States agreed last month to temporarily slash tariffs on each other's imports in a gesture of goodwill to continue talks. Part of what the president can accomplish boils down to what you can call a deal. The pact with Britain is less of a deal than it is a framework for talking about a deal, said Ms Wendy Cutler, the vice-president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former US trade negotiator. What was officially released by the two nations more closely resembled talking points for 'what you were going to negotiate versus the actual commitment', she said. During his first term, Mr Trump secured two major trade agreements, both signed in January 2020. One was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) which was a reworking of the North American free trade treaty from the 1990s that had helped transform the economies of the three nations. USMCA is an all-encompassing, legally binding agreement that resulted from a lengthy and formal process, according to trade analysts. Such deals are supposed to cover all aspects of trade between the respective nations and are negotiated under specific guidelines for congressional consultation. Closing the deal involves both negotiation and ratification – modifying or making laws in each partner country. The deals are signed by trade negotiators before the president signs the legislation that puts the deals into effect for the United States. Mr Trump's other major agreement in his first term was with China, in an echo of the current trade war. The pact, unlike previous deals, came about after Mr Trump threatened tariffs on certain Chinese imports. This 'tariff first, talk later' approach, said Ms Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is part of the same playbook the administration is currently using. The result was a nonbinding agreement between the two countries, known as 'Phase One,' that did not require approval from Congress and that could be ended by either party at any time. Still, it took almost one year and nine months to complete. China ultimately fell far short of the commitments it made to purchase American goods under the agreement. A comparison of the two first-term Trump deals shows the drawn-out and sometimes winding path each took to completion. Fragile truces (including ones made for 90 days) were formed, only for talks to break down later, all while rounds of tariffs injected uncertainty into the diplomatic relations between countries. The Times analysis used the date from the start of negotiations to the date when the president signed to determine the length of deal making for each major agreement dating back to 1985 that's currently in effect. The median time it took to get to the president's signature was just over 900 days. A separate analysis published in 2016 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics used the date of signature by country representatives as the completion moment and found that the median deal took more than 570 days. With roughly one month before the administration's self-imposed deadline, Mr Trump's ability to forge deals has been thrust into sudden doubt. Last week, a US trade court ruled he had overstepped his authority in imposing the April tariffs. For now, the tariffs remain in place, following a temporary stay from a federal appeals court. But in arguing its case, the federal government initially said that the ruling could upset negotiations with other nations and undercut the president's leverage. 'I think when the administration first started, they thought they could actually do these binding and enforceable deals within 90 days and then quickly realised that they bit off more than they could chew,' Ms Cutler said. The administration told its negotiating partners to submit offers of trade concessions they were willing to make by June 4, in an effort to strike trade deals in the coming weeks. The deadline was earlier reported by Reuters. The current approach to deal making may be strategic, Ms Manak said. One of the benefits of not doing a comprehensive deal like USMCA is that the administration can declare small 'victories' on a much faster timeline, she said. 'It means that trade agreements simply are just not what they used to be,' she added. 'And you can't really guarantee that whatever the US promises is actually going to be upheld in the long run.' NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.