BRUSSELS — The European Union will “think twice” before considering backing weak agreements at COP climate summits in the future, a Polish negotiator has warned. At this year’s COP30 climate conference in Brazil, the EU struggled to find allies to push for more ambitious climate action, and at one point threatened to walk away without signing a deal. The United States, its historical partner, was notably absent from the meeting. That’s a lesson learned, according to Katarzyna Wrona, Poland’s negotiator in the talks, who was also part of the EU’s delegation at the summit. “This COP happened in a very difficult geopolitical situation … We felt a very strong pressure from emerging economies but also from other parties, on financing, on trade,” she said at POLITICO’s Sustainable Future Summit. And “we had to really think very carefully whether we were in a position to support [the final deal], and we did, for the sake of multilateralism,” she added. “But I’m not sure … that the EU will be ready to take [this position] in the future,” Wrona warned. “Because something has changed, and we will surely think twice before we evaluate a deal that does not really bring much in terms of following up on the commitments that were undertaken,” she said. Also speaking on the panel, Elif Gökçe Öz, environmental counsellor at the permanent delegation of Turkey to the EU, said it would “be important for the EU … to forge alternative alliances in the COP negotiation process,” as global power dynamics shift. Wrona replied that the EU is “ready to work” with those that show ambition to reduce their emissions. “But it has to be very clearly … that the support is not limitless and it’s not unconditional,” she added.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music After 100 days of U.S. President Donald Trump’s shock and awe, is the EU still stuck in stunned paralysis — or does it finally have a plan?  POLITICO trade reporter Camille Gijs, tech reporter Eliza Gkritsi, defense editor Jan Cienski and senior climate correspondent Karl Mathiesen join host Sarah Wheaton to unpack the EU’s response on multiple fronts. Plus, Max Griera and Aitor Hernández-Morales break down the controversy around the European People’s Party congress in Valencia — and the strange blackout that hit the Iberian Peninsula just as delegates were arriving.

Europe is at a pivotal crossroads. Geopolitical instability and economic anxiety dominate the headlines and risk leading politicians into neglecting, or worse, actively dismantling, the continent’s climate leadership. This must not happen. Rather than turning their backs in a time of crisis, EU leaders should seek to accelerate climate action as a path to both security and prosperity.   In the face of rampant disinformation and constant undermining by vested interests in the fossil fuel industry, some now talk of diluting Europe’s climate goals to appease lobby groups and climate-skeptic politicians. This would be a big mistake. Climate ambition cannot be diminished or dismissed for short-term political goals or vested interests. It must be long-sighted, future-proofed and transformational. Europe must now, more than ever, double down and show that climate action delivers for people, particularly those who have lost faith that climate action can benefit their everyday lives.  A commitment to reducing net emissions by at least 90 percent by 2040, phasing out fossil fuels and a strong Clean Industrial Deal that puts cities at the center of its delivery is as important to the health and well-being of Europeans as a strong defense policy, trade relationships or social safety net. If done well, with workers and families’ needs at the center, it will be essential to building a resilient, competitive and secure Europe.   If Europe wants to win hearts, minds and markets, it must prove how the climate transition delivers not just long-term targets, but also tangible benefits — and this all begins in cities with good green jobs, security, healthier places to live, work and play and lower bills.  Europe cannot achieve industrial competitiveness without decarbonization, and it cannot meet its climate commitments without transforming industry. Cities are hubs of economic activity, innovation and workforce development that will determine whether Europe succeeds in achieving both goals.   City leaders understand how EU policies land on the ground. Empowered cities can turn high-level climate ambition into real economic transformation.  Today, Europe’s 18 C40 cities, representing approximately 48 million residents and contributing €3.51 trillion to the global economy, already support 2.3 million green jobs — 8 percent of their total employment — including over 1.3 million in sectors like clean energy, waste and transport. That number will only grow as key sectors decarbonize. With the right support, cities can accelerate the creation of good, green jobs and better access to them: jobs that are safe, secure and future-proof.   > Europe’s 18 C40 cities, representing approximately 48 million residents and > contributing €3.51 trillion to the global economy, already support 2.3 million > good, green jobs   The examples are everywhere: London’s Green Skills Academy is reskilling thousands for low-carbon careers. Rotterdam, where construction materials and buildings account for 25 percent of the city’s €1.3 billion annual spend, is using procurement to scale the circular economy, and through the Circular Materials Purchasing Strategy, strives for a 50 percent reduction in primary resource consumption by 2030. Considering that C40’s European cities have reduced per-capita emissions by 23 percent between 2015 and 2024, these are not just local initiatives — they are scalable models of the industrial transformation Europe needs.   Cities also control powerful economic levers. Strategic procurement can shape markets, drive clean-tech adoption and support local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). For example, Oslo mandates zero-emission construction in public projects, and five years on, 77 percent of municipal building sites are emission-free, a great example of procurement driving industry-wide changes. With direct access to funding and streamlined EU instruments, cities can go further and faster, creating demand for clean innovation and building thriving local economies from the ground up.  Yet today, only 13 percent of the global workforce is ready for these future careers, and Europe faces urgent skills shortages in high-emitting sectors. Cities are ideally placed to bridge that gap. Madrid and London, for instance, are already training workers in retrofitting, heat pumps and renewables. Paris streamlines business registration to support start-ups, while Lisbon provides free ESG training to SMEs, ensuring they meet evolving climate standards. But this needs serious investment at the EU level and real collaboration. Without structured EU-city collaboration, industrial policies risk being disconnected from economic realities and workforce needs.  A just transition also means ensuring that new green jobs are high-quality, inclusive and secure. The green economy has the potential to create 30 percent more jobs compared with a business-as-usual approach, but only if inclusion and fairness are built in from the start so these jobs will go to those who need them the most. Cities, in partnership with unions, businesses and workers, can ensure that industrial shifts translate into widespread job opportunities, particularly for marginalized communities. Projects such as ‘Boss Ladies’ in Copenhagen are championing the inclusion of women in the building sector.   A Clean Industrial Deal that excludes cities will fall short. One that recognizes them as co-creators — alongside businesses, unions and communities — can build the industrial, climate and social transition Europe urgently needs in a time of crisis. Cities must be full partners, with direct access to the tools, funding and policy frameworks needed to drive this transition.   To translate ambition into action, the Clean Industrial Deal must include clear national frameworks for sustainable investment, early business engagement and market-shaping tools like grants, innovation hubs and procurement. With strong public-private partnerships and targeted investments in cities, we can create the conditions for green jobs, resilient industries and lower energy bills.  This unpredictable decade has presented a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Europe to create a future that works for everyone. Europe’s clean industrial strategy must prioritize city-led innovation, invest in workforce transformation and deliver for those who feel most left behind. That is how Europe can regain global leadership — not by pulling back, but by proving how climate action can be the surest path to economic resilience, energy independence and shared prosperity.  > This unpredictable decade has presented a once-in-a-generation opportunity for > Europe to create a future that works for everyone.  

A bid by incoming United States President Donald Trump to wrest control of Greenland could be big business for fossil fuel firms — and could tip the planet into a climate-change spiral that it would have no hope recovering from. Trump, set to be inaugurated for his second term on Jan. 20, has issued a pledge to annex the icy island territory, which has been part of the Kingdom of Denmark for three centuries. He threatened to impose heavy tariffs to force Copenhagen’s hand. There’s another reason the island could be a tantalizing prospect for Washington, beyond Trump’s claim of needing “economic security.” According to an assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey, Greenland “contains approximately 31,400 million barrels oil equivalent (MMBOE) of oil” and other fuel products, including around 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. “That’s the kind of reserves that if they were discovered in Saudi Arabia or Qatar, businesses would be jumping for joy,” said Ajay Parmar, a senior crude markets analyst with commodities intelligence firm ICIS. “Of course, given it’s in Greenland, there would be technical challenges putting in place the piping to extract it and get it around the world,” he said. “But there’s still a major commercial opportunity there, even if it would require a lot of time and effort to make it work.” However, in 2021, Greenland introduced a moratorium on oil and gas exploitation after the socialist, pro-independence Inuit Ataqatigiit party took power, vowing to “take the climate crisis seriously.” DRILL, BABY, DRILL Trump, by contrast, has vowed to “unleash American energy” once he takes office, and has summed up his support for pumping more oil and gas in general with a simple slogan, “drill, baby, drill.” He has also promised to overturn a Biden administration freeze on new natural gas projects and consistently reneged on U.S. climate change commitments. Environmental campaigners worry that the prospect of Greenland falling into Trump’s hands could mean the oil and gas drilling ban is dropped, leading to more emissions they say amounts to a “carbon bomb.” “We can easily say that there is no path to limit warming to 1.5 degrees that does not include moratoriums or bans or not opening new oil fields anywhere,” said Kirtana Chandrasekaran, a campaigner with Friends of the Earth. According to an assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey, Greenland “contains approximately 31,400 million barrels oil equivalent (MMBOE) of oil” and other fuel products, including around 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. | Ritzau Scanpix and Emil Stach/Getty Images According to her, expanding extraction in Greenland would be a very poor example to set for global climate leadership and used as an excuse by climate change skeptics in Europe and further afield “as to why other countries should now just forget about it and collapse.” In an interview with Fox News, Congressman Mike Waltz — Trump’s incoming national security adviser — said the plan “is not just about Greenland.” “This is about the Arctic,” he said. “You have Russia that is trying to become king of the Arctic with 60-plus icebreakers, some of them nuclear-powered … We have two, and one just caught on fire.” “This is about, as the polar ice caps pull back, the Chinese are now cranking out icebreakers and pushing up there as well … it’s oil and gas. It’s our national security,” he added. The impact of mining could itself have a disastrous effect on local fauna and flora in the thawing region, according to Anne Tolvanen, professor and research program director at Natural Resources Institute Finland, who has co-authored a review on mining in the Arctic environment. “Northern growing seasons are short and cold, so all species are more or less on the edge of … survival,” she said, adding that nature could take “decades or even centuries” to recover from disturbances caused by heavy industry and other human activity.

BAKU, Azerbaijan — Countries agreed to a deal early Sunday that asks rich, developed nations to pay at least $300 billion to help poorer countries shift their economies away from polluting fuels, bringing to a close two weeks of contentious talks that threatened at multiple points to fall apart. It didn’t come easily, or without caustic criticism. The figure is short of what developing countries had been calling for, and is not in line with the trillions that they’ll need over the next decade. But it was likely the best they could get at a time of geopolitical turbulence and hardening divides between wealthier and more impoverished nations, with a second Donald Trump era looming in Washington. Developing countries responded with a mix of acceptance and anger. “This has been stage managed, and we are extremely, extremely disappointed,” Chandni Raina, India’s negotiator, said to the plenary hall after the gavel fell. Calling the sum “paltry” and the deal “nothing more than an optical illusion,” she said her country — the most populous on Earth — “opposes the adoption of this document.” Tina Stege, the climate envoy of the Marshall Islands, denounced the climate talks as a display of “political opportunism,” then added: “We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need. It isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start.” In the end, it came down to a deal between old and new powers, an unswerving Saudi petrostate and a Democratic U.S. government that has staked its legacy on climate leadership but knows its priorities will be taking at least a four-year hiatus while Trump occupies the White House. The talks also produced a deal that settles the rules for global carbon markets, a profit-oriented means of raising climate money, after a decade of negotiations. That could help countries meet their global climate targets and deliver money to developing nations if they can overcome issues with shoddy credits that have plagued existing voluntary markets. But the bigger prize was the new funding goal, and all that came with it. The $300 billion or more will come from public finance and related cash transfers, including money delivered through multilateral development banks from many countries — even developing ones such as China. That in effect pulled China and other developing nations, which already contribute to the World Bank and other international financial institutions, into helping rich countries meet their new obligations. The EU and U.S. had pressed for China and other high-polluting, emerging economies to join them as contributors to the new finance target, and that provision allows the EU, U.K. and U.S. to claim a partial victory. “The new finance goal rightly reflects the importance of going beyond traditional donors like Britain, and the role of countries like China in helping those on the frontline of this crisis,” said British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. The deal also opened up the possibility for developing nations such as China to contribute even more, or not, on a voluntary basis without having their status as developing countries reclassified — which also could let both sides claim a win. “We are not prepared to erase the definitions,” said a Brazilian negotiator, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The final text package also nodded to an agreement at last year’s climate summit in which countries pledged to move away from using fossil fuels, but this time did it without referring directly to the energy sources that cause climate change. Nor did it lay out actions to accelerate toward that goal, which European and U.S. negotiators had pushed for. That push was rebuffed by Saudi Arabia’s delegation, along with a group of emerging economies that included China and India. “It’s disappointing,” said Miliband. “It’s important not to make any bones about it.” The agreement, and the days of chaos preceding it, tested the ability of oil-rich Azerbaijan to host the crucial climate talks while sparring with European governments and critics of its democracy and human rights record. Next year, another oil producer — Brazil — will take on the challenge, with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva hosting the talks in Belém, a port city known as the “gateway to the Amazon.” BATTLE LINES FORM The money battle divided rich countries and poorer ones. Wealthier countries such as the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Germany grew their economies on polluting oil, gas and coal and have the money to shift to greener sources. In developing nations, by contrast, tens of millions of people still don’t have electricity and government budgets are constrained, often by debt repayments. But the divide is even more complicated than that. Small islands and dozens of deeply poor countries have contributed few of the emissions warming the planet and yet are highly vulnerable to the heat waves, floods and other disasters that warming inflicts. Then there are oil-rich Gulf states and emerging economies such as Brazil and India, whose greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly accelerating. And China is the world’s largest carbon polluter, a green energy powerhouse and second-largest economy. If poorer countries don’t have the money to move away from polluting activities, everyone suffers. “Finance is not a hand-out,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres told reporters as the talks entered their final days. “It’s an investment against the devastation that unchecked climate chaos will inflict on us all.” The finance battle has been a long time coming. And countries have spent the past three years preparing to resolve it at these talks, known as COP29. The new target replaces a 15-year-old pledge in which richer countries promised to deliver $100 billion annually from 2020 to 2025. They didn’t meet that pledge until 2022. Since then, the costs of climate-fueled disasters and the money needed to shift entire economies away from polluting energy have dramatically accelerated. Developed countries now need roughly $1 trillion each year in external funding through 2030 to meet their climate targets, according to a study by U.N.-backed experts. Public-related finance flows should account for $300 billion until 2030 — in line with where the talks landed. That figure needs to increase to at least $390 billion a year by 2035, the study says. Yet an early draft of the new proposal caused an uproar in the convention halls on Thursday for being full of options or missing sections entirely. Developed countries offered no new figure. Privately, European diplomats called the package “empty,” “not helpful,” “unserious” and, in one instance, “shit.” Things did not get much better from there. Even after POLITICO reported on Monday that the European Union had discussed an annual finance target of $200 billion to $300 billion, developed countries refused to name any number or range they would be willing to offer, or to disclose details of their internal negotiations. Their reluctance to put money on the table prompted accusations from many developing countries that they weren’t negotiating in good faith. Meanwhile, the U.S. delegation — just two months away from having a new president who rejects the reality of climate change — maintained a quiet presence. When nearly a dozen countries held a press conference Thursday to announce they would set “ambitious” new climate targets by February, American officials showed up even though the U.S had dropped its participation in the initiative. “You can either get things done or you can take the credit,” a senior U.S. official told POLITICO. They’ve been equally mum on the new finance target, saying only that they were pushing for something ambitious but achievable. U.S. officials have tried to put their best spin on Washington’s reluctance to stake bolder positions in public. On finance, they’ve said they’re negotiating for a deal they can eventually contribute to — whenever an American president wants to do so. “I think we were an important voice for ambition in these negotiations,” John Podesta, Biden’s senior climate adviser, told reporters after the deal landed Sunday. Others at the talks have had a saltier take on the American posture. The U.S. officials have “behaved as if they have got more influence than they have when they have only got weeks left in power,” said one European diplomat who was granted anonymity to speak freely. The Europeans, in turn, said $300 billion was as high as they could go. But even among the EU delegations, some diplomats wondered if leaving it until the final days of the summit to discuss a specific target was the right way to go. “Why, why, why would you wait till two days before crunch time to say a number?” one senior European diplomat said on Saturday afternoon. “I don’t think we’ve been handling this well.” Developing countries say outside funding is necessary for them to meet their national climate targets and harden their defenses against a growing onslaught of extreme weather. If the ultimate purpose of these talks is to get countries to take increasingly stronger action to lower their planet-warming pollution, then money is the thing that drives them forward. “Mitigation is in our interest because we can’t adapt to a world of 3 degrees or 2.8 forever,” said Ali Mohamed, climate envoy of Kenya, which currently chairs the Africa Group of negotiators. “However, that requires investment, that requires support.” A proposal offering $250 billion finally dropped on Friday afternoon, to much criticism from the poorer countries and vulnerable island states. The next offer from wealthy governments was a $300 billion take-it-or-leave-it proposal Saturday that landed with a thud on the more than 100 developing countries. In a closed-door meeting Saturday afternoon meant to allow countries to hash out their differences, a group of the world’s poorest countries, known as the LDCs, said they were temporarily leaving the negotiations because they hadn’t been included. “We don’t think as LDCs we have been consulted when these versions were drafted,” said Jiwoh Emmanuel Abdulahi, environment minister for Sierra Leone. The bloc of small island nations echoed that sentiment. “We feel as though we’re left with nothing from this COP,” Samoan natural resources minister Cedric Schuster, representing the Alliance of Small Island States, told other countries in the meeting. “Is this how we treat the countries with the moral high ground in the process, who stand to lose the most and have already lost so much?” The final agreement contained a small but crucial difference: Wealthy countries would offer at least $300 billion. “I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome … to meet the great challenge we face,” Guterres said after the summit ended. “But this agreement provides a base on which to build.”

BAKU, Azerbaijan — The U.S. has played the powerbroker in more than 30 years of global negotiations on fighting climate change — a quest that has swept in an army of diplomats, the world’s biggest companies and every nation on Earth. The first climate summit since Donald Trump’s second White House victory underscored the volatile side of that legacy. In a 14-day conference focused on hundreds of billions of dollars in climate finance, everybody recognized that the incoming U.S. president will refuse to pay any amount the Biden administration agrees to. President Joe Biden’s emissaries helped orchestrate a multinational pledge for “ambitious” carbon-cutting, but they declined to join it. And as the U.S. prepares to recede from global leadership, much of the rest of the world is looking to China to fill the void. Trump’s upcoming presidency is the most important source of the instability on display at the COP29 summit, despite all the Biden administration’s efforts to send signals that America is still on board with the climate cause, said Carlos Fuller, Belize’s permanent representative at the United Nations. “This has become the COP of uncertainty because of that change,” Fuller told POLITICO. “Whatever the U.S. says here — now, it could be with the best intentions — will they follow through? Or will they just say, ‘I can give you everything,’ but then it means nothing?” Trump’s rise and resurgent far-right political movements across Europe were just one of many shadows over the climate talks that ended early Sunday, held in the capital city of oil-rich Azerbaijan. Saudi resistance torpedoed any effort to end the summit with a call to move away from fossil fuels — never mind that a pledge to do just that was the supposedly triumphant achievement of the last climate summit less than a year ago. All the while, scientific evidence mounted that the Earth’s temperatures are rising toward catastrophic levels. “The worst part is the unpredictability,” Brazilian climate chief Ana Toni told POLITICO. “The whole world says that on finance, on policy, we need a roadmap, we need predictability. “And then,” she added, “you have the U.S. going in and out.” Here are key takeaways from this year’s climate talks, and what they bode for what’s next: HOPES FOR MEETING AMBITIOUS TEMPERATURE TARGETS ARE A BUST COP29 began with inauspicious news: The World Meteorological Organization said that this year would eclipse 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming since the pre-industrial age for the first time. The mark, which set a record for the modern era, is in some ways symbolic: Crossing that threshold for one year is less dire than doing so over a 30-year climatological timescale, the point at which catastrophic effects of warming — runaway ice melt, heatwaves and droughts that make parts of the world virtually uninhabitable, and rising seas that swallow low-lying lands and islands — would become irreversible. Still, the milestone showed that the world is most likely heading past 1.5 degrees for the long haul, despite nearly a decade of vows by world leaders to avert it. Even before Trump takes office, the U.S. is already on track to miss Biden’s target of halving its greenhouse gas pollution during this decade, relative to 2005 levels. Trump’s policies, which include vows to leave the 2015 Paris climate agreement, unwind Biden’s climate law, reverse vehicle fuel economy standards and pump more oil and gas, would throttle the pace of emissions reductions and global cooperation. Some nations at COP29 echoed Trump’s approach. Populist Argentine President Javier Milei openly flirted with exiting the Paris pact, while Saudi Arabia blocked attempts to restate last year’s fossil fuel pledge. The U.S., meanwhile, declined to join a coalition including the European Union, Canada, Mexico, the U.K. and Norway that promised during the conference to embrace “ambitious” new climate plans by early next year. U.S. officials did not explain their absence from the effort, even though the Biden administration had helped orchestrate the pledge. Broadly, nations arrived unwilling to move from their “red lines” on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, said South African Environmental Minister Dion George, who co-chaired that negotiating track. He said the U.S. was more “subdued” when “normally they talk a lot.” Taking hardened positions is “not in anybody’s interest, frankly, but I think that’s a reflection of where we are heading in the world,” he told POLITICO. “What’s required in this type of environment where we are seeing very interesting geopolitical shifts: Leadership is required. And bravery. And I’m not seeing much of it.” SHOW ME THE MONEY (ONCE DEMS ARE BACK IN POWER) The summit’s most contentious issue involved how much money wealthy nations would offer poorer countries to help them cope with climate disasters while moving their economies toward clean energy. Factions arrived poles apart — with some rich countries pushing for $200 billion in climate financing each year for the next decade, even though studies indicate the real need is more than $1 trillion a year. An independent analysis by finance experts said developing nations needed $300 billion per year of public, mostly grant-based funding that charges little or no interest, plus a total of $1 trillion annually provided by other sources such as the private sector. Senior U.S. officials acknowledged that the looming four years of Trump 2.0 and at least two years of full Republican control of Congress moderated how much climate finance the United States could expect to deliver. Instead, they sought to craft a deal that a future, climate-friendly administration could meet. The summit ended with a call for at least $300 billion in annual finance, which representatives of developing countries called insufficient to meet their needs. “The U.S. elections and many other geopolitical events have changed what [the rich countries] could have provided,” said Michai Robertson, lead finance negotiator for a coalition of island states. Trump and congressional Republicans zeroed out climate finance during the president-elect’s first term. Biden spent four years slowly rebuilding those U.S. efforts, hitting $11.4 billion this year and achieving its goal of quadrupling 2016 levels. But the pendulum will almost certainly swing back. While Trump’s transition team did not respond to requests for comment on the finance talks, the president-elect has repeatedly dismissed climate change as a hoax designed to weaken the United States, and he has put Elon Musk and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of an effort to find trillions of dollars in cuts from government spending. At the same time, the U.S. took part in a contentious meeting among major economic powers early Saturday, after which it joined Australia and European countries in agreeing to set the number at $300 billion a year. One European negotiator criticized the U.S. positioning, saying the Americans “behaved as if they have got more influence than they have when they have only got weeks left in power.” The emergence of Trump in the U.S. and European leaders who complained of fiscal constraints in their capitals led to “a lot of posturing” and blame shifting on finance, said Ruleta Camacho-Thomas, Antigua and Barbuda’s climate ambassador. “There’s a lot of waiting and seeing what the other country will do and what the other group of countries will do: ‘But if these people are not doing this, then I can’t do that,’” she said. “That is global politicking. And this is about survival for us.” As wide as the divide on climate was, Trump’s emergence made it more important to not let COP29 fall to pieces, one European diplomat said. “The developing countries are now saying that it is better to have no agreement than a bad one,” said the diplomat, who was granted anonymity to discuss closed-door talks. “Normally that is true but in this case, with the upcoming presidency in the U.S., it should be crucial for them to have an agreement now.” CHINA IS ASCENDANT The U.S. receding under Trump amid his likely withdrawal from the Paris Agreement make room for China to take over the global climate leadership role. But how China will lead is a major question. Beijing’s massive subsidies for its clean energy technology have reduced costs for developing nations’ green transitions, yet its Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure lending program has saddled those countries with onerous debt. While reports show China’s greenhouse gas pollution may have peaked, it is still by far the world’s top driver of climate change. Accelerating China’s carbon-cutting is key for staying below 1.5 degrees, but it’s still building more coal-fired power plants. China also routinely resists pleas for transparency for its pollution-cutting measures. The same is true on climate finance. “China is a bit complex, but at the same time, we do see leadership from China,” said Harjeet Singh, global engagement director with the environmental group Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative. Trump’s rise will likely give China more of the global market, clean energy analysts have said. Ending Biden’s consumer incentives for buying electric cars, which Republicans have targeted, and subsidies for making batteries, solar panels and wind turbines would curtail burgeoning U.S. efforts to compete in realms that China dominates. China has also led a backlash against efforts by the U.S. and other wealthy nations to impose industrial policies that would blunt China’s stranglehold over key raw materials and technologies for green energy. It has prodded emerging economies to criticize policies such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and and the EU’s carbon border tariff, arguing they make greening their economies more expensive. At COP29, Trump’s impending return to power gave the U.S. less leverage to corral China into making compulsory contributions to the finance goals. China — which has the world’s second-largest economy — hung onto a 1992 U.N. determination that it is poor enough to avoid paying into those efforts, though the final agreement leaves the door open for countries that have since grown wealthier to make commitments if they desire. China, however, sought to disarm criticism when it for the first time offered a figure for the amount of finance it has provided to other nations through its long-touted “South-South Cooperation.” The total is $25 billion since 2016, the Chinese said. Zia Weise contributed to this report.

BAKU, Azerbaijan — China must step up and help lead the fight against climate change, starting with a strong new climate target, the United Nations’ top climate official said Friday. Simon Stiell, executive secretary of U.N. Climate Change, touted China’s investments in clean energy technology as a demonstration of “leading by example.” He then implored the world’s largest emitter to release a strong new plan to cut its planet-warming pollution — known as a nationally determined contribution, or NDC.  “A strong NDC would send an important signal to other countries that stronger targets drive investment, that courageous leadership pays off, that development and sustainability are not at odds — that they are compatible,” said Stiell, speaking on the sidelines of the global climate talks in Baku. His comments, delivered at an event on China’s support for developing nations, come as global climate talks proceed in the shadow of a government transition in the United States, the world’s largest economy and second-biggest emitter.  The U.S. has traditionally taken a key leadership role at these global summits, pushing countries like China to do more to cut their emissions faster.  But President-elect Donald Trump has disputed the science behind global warming and promised to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, the landmark deal that calls on countries to collectively tackle climate change. Trump exited the deal in his first term, but President Joe Biden rejoined in 2021. Stiell noted that this year’s global climate summit and the next, known as COP29 and COP30, will be “critical” for global efforts to limit rising temperatures.  “We will need China’s continued leadership,” Stiell said. Countries at this year’s COP29 summit will need to agree on a new sum for global aid to help developing countries address climate change. Traditional rich country donors, such as the U.S. and European nations, are calling for China and other high-emitting, emerging economies to start chipping in. China has pushed back — arguing that it already contributes significant funding to help developing countries through training, joint research and direct financial support. China has provided nearly $25 billion (177 billion yuan) for climate efforts in the Global South since 2016, according to its officials. Jennifer Morgan, Germany’s climate envoy, on Thursday commended China’s efforts but said: “The question remains as to exactly what money flows are being counted here. The quality of the financing is also still unclear at present … It shows that China has already done a lot and is already doing a lot. But only what is reported transparently will be recognized.” As part of the COP29 negotiations, countries will also be discussing the transparency of their support and the need for it to come in the form of below-market-rate loans or grants rather than high-interest-rate loans. The money is considered necessary to ratchet up the emissions cuts countries are meant to pledge in their next round of climate targets due in February. China is currently pledging to peak carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and zero them out by 2060. U.S. officials, pointing to several analyses, say China needs to commit to slashing at least 30 percent of its emissions by 2035. Zhao Yingmin, head of China’s COP29 delegation and deputy minister at China’s ecology ministry, told POLITICO that “the entire international community should work together to deal with the crisis we are facing.”  Asked if Beijing would deliver a strong NDC and show the leadership Stiell demanded, he said: “China has contributed in addressing climate change. But in the future, China will do our best to contribute more.”  Zhao would not say whether China would consider counting its South-South funding, the money Beijing invests in other developing countries, toward the new goal. The responsibility for the new finance goal “lies with developed countries, not developing countries,” he added. “But developing countries will also help other developing countries according to the South-South cooperation framework.” U.S. diplomats representing the Biden administration in Baku say they’re still pushing to drive climate action forward at the event. Biden is preparing to submit a new NDC to signal what the U.S. could do — even if Trump is unlikely to deliver it. They’ve also called on China — and other countries — to do more. If the U.S. is no longer able to project climate leadership over the next four years, White House national climate adviser Ali Zaidi said earlier this week, “that will come to the detriment of U.S. businesses and U.S. workers, but also to the global dialogue, and we will be, as a collective, looking for other countries to step up to the plate.”

BAKU, Azerbaijan — At the United Nations climate talks bordering the Caspian Sea, a parade of leaders came to the podium this week to urge the world to “seize the opportunities of tomorrow” — in the words of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer — and to avoid disasters that would “put inflation on steroids” — U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell.   In a cavernous meeting hall nearby, U.S. President Joe Biden’s top climate diplomat (for 67 more days) announced what will almost certainly be a short-lived fee on methane pollution from the oil and gas industry.  But an ocean and a continent away, Donald Trump was making a rapid-fire series of personnel moves aimed at delivering on his promises to dismember the climate legacy of incumbent U.S. President Joe Biden and erect an alternative vision for government.  The split screen of events on opposite sides of the world is exposing the stark shift in power over global climate policy taking place in the new Trump era.  In tapping former Republican lawmaker Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, the president-elect opted for loyalty over expertise, energy industry officials said privately after being granted anonymity to express their views freely. Despite being a pro-Trump fixture on the campaign trail, Zeldin never sat on environmental committees during his four terms in the House, though he did join a voluntary bipartisan climate caucus.  The selection of Sen. Marco Rubio for secretary of state also signaled a shift in posture toward the United Nations, an institution that the Florida Republican has frequently criticized in unison with other conservatives. Rubio’s hawkish stance toward China also heralds clashes with a nation that many expect to fill the void that the U.S. will be leaving in global climate leadership. Trump’s pick for ambassador to the U.N., Elise Stefanik, has also been critical of the organization. Trump also announced late Tuesday that he’s tasking billionaire Elon Musk and fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy with slashing government headcount and spending — immediately raising the prospect of the U.S. being less able to enforce laws and regulations managing the environment. Their work “will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies,” Trump wrote in a post on his social media network. The divide between the news coming out of Mar-a-Lago and from the Azerbaijani capital holds troubling implications for the roles of both domestic and international climate institutions during the second Trump presidency. That’s despite attempts at optimism during Tuesday and Wednesday’s speeches at COP29, including the assessment of Biden climate envoy John Podesta that “the global momentum … is bigger than any one country.” Biden was also readying himself to send a more concrete signal of U.S. determination to remain on the climate track: His top domestic climate adviser, Ali Zaidi, told POLITICO’s Power Play podcast that the U.S. was preparing to announce a new national goal for cutting carbon pollution by 2035 — setting a marker for what kind of progress is possible, notwithstanding Trump’s return. Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who worked in the first Trump administration, said a “pretty wide chasm” existed between Trump’s world and the climate officials assembled in Baku, “and it’s only partially about policy.” “Part of it is about underlying thoughts about how the world should work and does work,” McKenna said. “Those of us who spent our lives in D.C., we are fundamentally conservative with a small ‘c.’ We revere institutions and credentials and process. But team Trump has figured out [that] none of that [will] help them and [that it] actually stands in their way.” That vision contrasts with three decades of painstaking international collaboration to winch down global greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a realm where consensus rules and the competing aims of nations are held in check by the moral suasion of their peers. Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev bridled at the “hypocrisy” of Western countries who have lectured his oil-dependent country on climate while buying up his reserves to feed their industry. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images But this year, as war and political upheaval posed major distractions, few leaders of major economies bothered to attend COP29. (Biden, Chinese President Xi Jinping and European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen were among the no-shows.) Those who did largely brought empty words. In the absence of many Western leaders, authoritarians and the heads of nations deeply reliant on the oil and gas industry for their incomes enjoyed the limelight.  Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev bridled at the “hypocrisy” of Western countries who have lectured his oil-dependent country on climate while buying up his reserves to feed their industry. On Wednesday, Azerbaijan signed gas supply deals with Slovakia and Bulgaria.  Then, on Wednesday, Aliyev threw a grenade into the talks. He used a meeting dedicated to small island nations to lecture French and other European delegates about “neocolonialism” and the destructive legacy of their former empires. That prompted France’s ecological transition minister, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, to boycott the talks and drew bristling responses from the Dutch and the European Union. Starmer tried to stand against the tide by announcing a goal for the U.K. to slash its emissions by 81 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. Steill, the U.N. climate chief, lauded him as a “powerful example.”  The United Arab Emirates and Brazil have also announced tough new targets as all three countries seek to zero out their climate pollution by 2050. Aliyev’s comments on colonialism were doubly charged because the real mission of the COP29 talks is to address the shortfall in the money available in developing countries to build clean energy infrastructure and to protect their communities against climate-change devastation. There, the divide among countries can be measured in the trillions of dollars. Negotiators on Wednesday night were at loggerheads over options for a new annual finance target that ranged from “a floor” of $100 billion — which rich countries prefer — to $2 trillion — a goal being pushed by countries in need. Creative solutions are being offered to get around that gap. In a strip-lighted meeting room in the temporary venue — the climate meeting is being held in the bowels of the Olympic Stadium in Azerbaijan, a petrostate that has never held an Olympic Games — Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Barbadian leader Mia Mottley announced a coalition of countries backing a global “solidarity levy” on aviation, shipping, wealth and fossil fuels. Mottley insisted the levy was “not beyond us politically.”  Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine told the group that her Pacific atoll nation needed $5 billion just to protect its main two population centers from being overwhelmed by the rising ocean. Her country’s entire GDP is $280 million. But the coalition is still a germ, joined by just a handful of countries, and one of its founding members, French President Emmanuel Macron, was not present in Baku.  The prospects for any finance goal agreed at these talks will be limited if Trump decides to curtail contributions from the world’s richest country. The Biden administration provided $9.5 billion during its first three years, up from $1.5 billion when Biden took office from Trump.  In opening speeches at the U.S. pavilion on Tuesday, Podesta and Zaidi pointed to the durability of the Biden administration’s signature domestic climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act. Trump has vowed to halt the law’s billions in unspent dollars, but Zaidi said earlier in the day that it would be economically “destabilizing” to unwind it entirely — pointing to jobs and infrastructure investments the law’s tax breaks and other incentives are overwhelmingly bringing to Republican districts. They’ve also repeatedly pointed to previous bipartisan cooperation on climate, and spent time lauding the prospects for America’s nuclear industry, a Republican darling though not necessarily a favorite of Trump’s. Donald Trump has vowed to leave the Paris climate agreement for a second time, and the broader Trump orbit has largely viewed climate diplomacy as a non-factor. | Allison Robbert-Pool/Getty Images “The United States will continue, I think, to show up in one form or another to move the ball forward,” Zaidi said Tuesday. Yet the prospects for that happening in the halls of the U.N. talks appear dim. Trump has vowed to leave the Paris climate agreement for a second time, and the broader Trump orbit has largely viewed climate diplomacy as a non-factor. Some within Republican circles have pushed the incoming Trump administration to consider exiting the entire U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1992 treaty underlying the global regime of climate negotiations, according to a former Trump administration energy official. The official said the topic had sparked “healthy debate,” but was of far lower priority.   “I think there’s a common understanding and agreement that he’s going to start with Paris and then look at other ideas,” said the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss evolving policy considerations. Mandy Gunasekara, who was chief of staff at the EPA during the last Trump administration, has advocated that Trump follow through this time on leaving the climate framework. “I think people have a clear picture of how the U.N. process is misused to tie the hands of domestic policy,” she said, inaccurately characterizing the non-binding commitments that countries make under the Paris climate agreement. “And that … creates the type of policy motivation necessary to consider withdrawing from the UNFCCC versus just a derivative issue like the Paris Agreement.” The U.S. under Trump may still find ways to participate in global climate conversations, particularly with regard to deploying new technology such as advanced nuclear power or carbon capture, said U.S. Energy Association CEO Mark Menezes, who was No. 2 in Trump’s previous Energy Department. But contributing new sums of money to developing country climate projects is likely a non-starter, he said. “If it’s about the U.S. is going to put up billions of dollars, and other countries won’t contribute to any kind of funds, I don’t think that that’s going to get very far,” Menezes said. The cognitive dissonance between the goings-on in Washington and Baku was, for at least one leader, too much to bear. Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama said he had discarded his “well-prepared speech” after sitting in the lounge set aside for leaders waiting for their three-minute speaking slots. What did it all mean, he asked, “if the world’s biggest polluters continue business as usual?” “I was watching the silent TV screens,” Rama said. “People there eat, drink, meet and take photos together while those images of voiceless speeches from leaders play on and on and on in the background. To me, this seems exactly like what happens in the real world every day. Life goes on with its old habits, and our speeches — full of good words about fighting climate change — change nothing.” 

Exxon Mobil Chair and CEO Darren Woods urged the incoming Trump administration to avoid making turbulent climate policy swings — and he pushed the president-elect to reject carbon border taxes favored by some GOP lawmakers. In an interview with POLITICO, Woods signaled that one of the most powerful players in the energy industry might serve as a moderating influence in Washington, even as Republicans seek to dismantle Biden-era climate policies. The future of the Inflation Reduction Act and other clean-energy programs is one of the most important questions hanging over the incoming administration. “I don’t think the challenge or the need to address global emissions is going to go away,” Woods said. “Anything that happens in the short term would just make the longer term that much more challenging.” Woods made the comments via telephone from the COP29 climate negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan, just days after President-elect Donald Trump won the White House with a vow to turbocharge United States’ fossil fuel production and roll back Biden policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas pollution and speeding the growth of clean energy. Trump is widely expected to withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and his election has scrambled climate diplomacy at the annual talks. Despite the forecasts that the world is on pace to set a new annual high temperature for the second year in a row, Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax,” demonized policies promoting electric vehicles and castigated wind and solar energy. But some members of his party, including a sizable number of Republicans in Congress, have spoken out against wholesale repeal of the IRA, citing the economic benefits it has delivered to their districts. Woods, who took the top job at Exxon after his predecessor Rex Tillerson became Trump’s first secretary of State, said he opposed carbon border tariffs, which would impose fees on imports that are produced through processes with higher carbon emissions than in the U.S. That type of tariff has been touted by Robert Lighthizer, who was Trump’s first-term trade representative, as well as some Republicans in Congress who said it would benefit U.S. companies whose products are cleaner than their foreign competitors. It is widely viewed as a response to the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, which would tax imported raw materials from countries that do not have a price on carbon emissions. “I think it’s a bad idea. It’s a really bad idea,” Woods said. “I think carbon border adjustment is going to introduce a whole new level of complexity and bureaucratic red tape. I don’t think it’s going to be very effective.” Instead, he said, a regulatory system based on the carbon intensity of products would be a better solution. That would still require the government to enforce some basic accounting standards and a framework assessing the carbon dioxide footprint across a range of products. “Regulation will play a really important part of that,” Woods said. The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism has emerged as a COP29 flash point. China, Brazil, India and South Africa lodged a formal complaint against governments using trade measures to curb emissions, arguing it raised the costs of deploying green technology in low- and middle-income countries. Several countries initially raised similar objections to Biden’s IRA, contending it subsidized U.S.-based companies while shutting out foreign competitors. Trump has vowed to scrap many of those incentives. Woods said Exxon would adapt to whatever happens with IRA provisions that benefit the oil and gas industry, such as tax incentives for carbon capture, utilization and storage technology. “I’ve been advising that we have some level of consistency,” Woods said. “One of the challenges with this polarized political environment we find ourselves in is the impact of policy switching back and forth as political cycles occur and elections happen and administrations change. That’s not good for the economy.” Woods said Biden’s energy policies had amounted to “limiting the supply of traditional sources of energy and trying to force through expensive alternatives,” though he cautioned against complete about-face on climate change. He warned American industries that fail to address environmental performance during Trump’s second term risk worsening the problem. “We all have a responsibility to figure out, given our capabilities and ability to contribute, how can we best do that,” Woods said. “How the Trump administration can contribute in this space is to help establish the right, thoughtful, rational, logical framework for how the world starts to try to reduce the emissions.” Woods’ preferred approach on carbon intensity echoes several legislative proposals floating around Congress. Those are similar to other models that effectively reduced sulfur content in marine fuel oil and automotive diesel. “Once we can specify carbon intensity, you can then unlock the capability of industry to meet those carbon intensity specifications, and every government can set that level based on their set of circumstances in their country,” Woods said. Exxon has also launched a carbon capture business that aims to collect emissions of the greenhouse emitted from petroleum operations and store them in underground reservoirs in Louisiana and Texas as well as the seabed below the Gulf of Mexico. That technology has been embraced by the oil sector and received lucrative tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act, though it has been criticized by environmental groups. Despite Biden’s focus on green policies, the U.S. still became the world’s top oil and gas producer during his term and hit production levels unequaled by any other country in history. The U.S., the world’s largest economy and second-largest emitter of planet-heating gases, remains off track of Biden’s goal to cut emissions in half this decade, relative to 2005 levels.

BAKU, AZERBAIJAN — Just by turning up at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Keir Starmer is sending a signal. The U.K. prime minister wants to show that — whatever else is going on in the world — his new government cares about the global fight against climate change.  That fight, Starmer said last year, is “probably the single biggest issue” facing the world. But is anyone listening? The leaders of the U.S, China, France, Germany, Japan and India have all skipped this week’s get-together in Azerbaijan.  As a result, Starmer suddenly finds himself top billing. And that’s right where the U.K.’s Labour government wants to be; Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who will lead negotiations at COP, has recently vowed to fill a “vacuum in leadership” on climate change.  The world has changed substantially in the last week with the reelection in the U.S. of Donald Trump — a man who last week called climate change a “hoax” and who is expected to push climate action further and further down the international agenda. TWO PRIORITIES With fellow climate-conscious European leaders including Emmanuel Macron of France and Germany’s Olaf Scholz facing political instability at home, and a very different president in the White House, Starmer may find any role as a global climate leader a lonely one. “I’m not going to comment on his views,” the prime minister told reporters aboard his plane to Baku, when reminded of Trump’s words. “I am very clear in mine,” he continued, “which is that the climate challenge is something that we have got to rise to — and that’s why I’ve repeatedly said we’ve got to show leadership.” Starmer’s pitch to Trump and other opponents of climate action is simple. If global warming is left to rip, it will devastate two things Trump’s voters – and disenchanted populations across the West including the U.K. — care about: economic growth and security, including border security.  These, Starmer said en route to Baku, are “the two key priorities for me in all of the engagements with our partners.” And he eyed the possibility that a Trumpist U.S. withdrawal from the green growth agenda might even help the U.K. get ahead. “There’s a race on now to be the global leader on this,” he said. “I want us to be in the race and I want us to win the race.” NEW TARGET INCOMING With Trump returning to the White House, senior U.K. figures from previous COP summits are ratcheting the pressure on Starmer to step up and provide leadership on the global climate agenda. “If the new Trump administration decides to walk away from the Paris Agreement for a second time and retreats from climate leadership, I hope other nations will step forward to try to fill some of the breach, including the new U.K. government,” said Alok Sharma, who served as president of COP26 when the U.K. played host three years ago. On Tuesday, Starmer is expected to unveil an ambitious new emissions cutting target — an attempt to raise the bar for other countries setting their 2035 goals ahead of the next COP, due next year in Brazil. The deadline for those targets is February. But, alongside the Brazilians, the U.K. has got in early, in the hope other countries will then raise their own ambitions.  Last month the U.K. government’s official advisers, the Climate Change Committee, recommended an ambitious target of an 81 percent emissions cut on 1990 levels. All eyes will be on Starmer to see if he sticks to that number. The remainder of the Azerbaijan summit will focus on a thornier issue for wealthy nations such as the U.K. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY The main aim of the conference is to agree on a new goal for climate finance — the money which flows from developed countries to poorer nations to help them transition away from fossil fuels. Developing countries have called for publicly-funded contributions from wealthy governments to reach $1 trillion annually. Even before Trump’s victory, that sort of figure clashed with straitened finances and demands on Starmer to fix the public sector at home. Flying into the summit, he confirmed that the U.K. would honor a longstanding commitment to spend £11.6 billion on climate finance from 2021/22 to 2025/26 — a pledge that had been wobbling. But he went no further when asked if he backed the $1 trillion aspiration. “I’m not making any commitment for the U.K. at this COP at all on that front,” Starmer said, adding that it was now “high time” for the private sector “to start paying their fair share.” It is not a surprising message in Baku, where all rich countries are dragging their feet over funding commitments. But it will do little to reassure campaigners hoping for that promised U.K. leadership. “The U.K.’s legacy as a major polluter has placed a burden squarely on the shoulders of those that have contributed the least to the climate crisis,” said Taahra Ghazi, co-chief executive of the ActionAid UK charity. “It’s time to pay the price.”