US Abandons Climate Talks Amid Trump's Hostile Stance
In a shocking move, the Trump administration has confirmed that no high-level representatives will attend the upcoming UN climate talks in Brazil, further cementing its reputation as a climate skeptic. This decision underscores President Trump's administration's hostile stance towards addressing the global heating crisis.
The US has historically sent delegations to these climate summits over the past three decades, even during periods with less urgency to address the issue under former presidents George W Bush and Donald Trump in his first term. However, this time around, the talks are expected to be devoid of an official American presence on a scale never seen before.
Trump has repeatedly referred to the climate crisis as a "hoax" and a "con job," and announced plans to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, which aims to limit global temperature rise. In a statement to the Guardian, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said that President Trump would not jeopardize the country's economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals.
Instead of engaging in multilateral talks with other countries, the administration has favored direct negotiations with individual nations. This approach has yielded agreements on purchasing American oil and gas from the European Union, securing rare earth materials and nuclear power projects with Japan and South Korea.
However, this stance is taking a toll on global efforts to address climate change. Countries are struggling to submit updated plans to slash emissions, and many delegates face accommodation issues in Belém, which serves as a gateway to the Amazon river. Climate experts warn that the US absence from these talks will only further exacerbate the crisis.
"This is a much more aggressive administration now, across the board," said Todd Stern, a former lead climate negotiator for the US during Barack Obama's presidency. "I think most countries aren't going to pay attention to that; they know climate change is real."
Despite the lack of support from the federal government, subnational American jurisdictions are pressing ahead with climate action. Governors, members of Congress, mayors, and activists will attend the Cop30 summit with a message that these local efforts are crucial in addressing global warming.
The absence of US diplomatic support has left some lawmakers feeling disillusioned. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said he was told there would be no embassy support for the US delegation, which is a standard courtesy.
In contrast to this stance, one former senior state department official believes it's better for the US not attend the talks, allowing other countries to strike a stronger climate agreement without interference from a spoiler like the US.
In a shocking move, the Trump administration has confirmed that no high-level representatives will attend the upcoming UN climate talks in Brazil, further cementing its reputation as a climate skeptic. This decision underscores President Trump's administration's hostile stance towards addressing the global heating crisis.
The US has historically sent delegations to these climate summits over the past three decades, even during periods with less urgency to address the issue under former presidents George W Bush and Donald Trump in his first term. However, this time around, the talks are expected to be devoid of an official American presence on a scale never seen before.
Trump has repeatedly referred to the climate crisis as a "hoax" and a "con job," and announced plans to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, which aims to limit global temperature rise. In a statement to the Guardian, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said that President Trump would not jeopardize the country's economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals.
Instead of engaging in multilateral talks with other countries, the administration has favored direct negotiations with individual nations. This approach has yielded agreements on purchasing American oil and gas from the European Union, securing rare earth materials and nuclear power projects with Japan and South Korea.
However, this stance is taking a toll on global efforts to address climate change. Countries are struggling to submit updated plans to slash emissions, and many delegates face accommodation issues in Belém, which serves as a gateway to the Amazon river. Climate experts warn that the US absence from these talks will only further exacerbate the crisis.
"This is a much more aggressive administration now, across the board," said Todd Stern, a former lead climate negotiator for the US during Barack Obama's presidency. "I think most countries aren't going to pay attention to that; they know climate change is real."
Despite the lack of support from the federal government, subnational American jurisdictions are pressing ahead with climate action. Governors, members of Congress, mayors, and activists will attend the Cop30 summit with a message that these local efforts are crucial in addressing global warming.
The absence of US diplomatic support has left some lawmakers feeling disillusioned. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said he was told there would be no embassy support for the US delegation, which is a standard courtesy.
In contrast to this stance, one former senior state department official believes it's better for the US not attend the talks, allowing other countries to strike a stronger climate agreement without interference from a spoiler like the US.
is like they're literally taking a step back on climate change and it's just so frustrating... like yeah no emissions plans or anything? 
they know how to get stuff done without the fed getting in the way. hope some actual progress comes out of Cop30 tho 
i'm kinda surprised that the us isn't attending these climate talks anymore. we've been learning about climate change in school and how important it is to reduce our carbon footprint 
anyway, i guess this is what happens when you have a president who doesn't believe in climate change... my history teacher just told me about the paris agreement, though, and how it's trying to limit global warming 
. maybe this will be an opportunity for other countries to work together and find solutions without us being there? 
. Theyre more worried about hurting our economy than saving the planet 
. I mean, what's the point of having all those countries gathered in one place if we're not gonna put our money where our mouth is? 
. I'm glad that at least some state officials are stepping up and doing their part, but it's just not enough if we're not working together as a global community 
. We need to get our priorities straight and start taking real action on reducing emissions or else we'll be in trouble 
. Can't believe the US is missing out on this chance to lead by example 
theyre literally not sending anyone from the us to represent them lol what a joke. its soooo frustrating cuz we need global cooperation on this issue like seriously, global warming is real and were all in this together 
governors, congresspeople, mayors, activists - they're all doing their part to combat climate change. and its cool that some lawmakers are speaking out against trump's stance too 
. I mean, can you imagine if China or India didn't show up to some big meeting about their own interests? They'd be all like "You're not taking us seriously, so why should we?" 
It's time for the US to step up and lead on this issue, but instead they're just letting their egos get in the way 
. I mean, what's next? Not showing up to a meeting about national security because you don't want to compromise on your "tough guy" stance 
. Get over it, Trump! This isn't about being tough, it's about doing what's right for the planet and future generations 
. It's like they're trying to sabotage the whole thing.
. Like, our governors and mayors should be doing more to reduce emissions and invest in renewable energy - that's the kind of leadership we need! 
". Like, don't get me wrong, I love our local climate heroes and all, but we can't just expect other countries to save the planet without us leading by example (or not?) 
.
, then maybe he should be more involved in trying to debunk it instead of avoiding these talks altogether? But at the same time, I'm like, "Hey, what about the economy and national security, right?" 
. Can we just have a rational conversation about this already?! 
. This is a huge slap in the face to all those countries who are actually trying to make a difference 
. It's not about America first, it's about us all failing because of Trump's toxic ideology 
. Can't we just get on board and work together on this already?!