As the annual global Climate Conference (COP29) continues its first week in Baku, Azerbaijan, we can already see what the impact of the next Trump presidency will be. Credit: Shutterstock

By Felix Dodds and Michael Strauss
Nov 12 2024 (IPS)

So, the worst has happened. American voters have apparently just elected the most chaotic and kleptocratic individual in their country’s political history as their president. (We say ‘apparently’, because these days nothing can be certain about the integrity of the US political or electoral system – as is the case with far too many other countries.)

That means the incumbent president, Joe Biden – who implemented the greatest investment in wind and solar energy, in climate-friendly technology, and in reducing CO2 emissions in any nation in history – is out.

That means the previous president, Donald Trump – who opposed every one of those climate-friendly investments and has promised the greatest re-investment in oil, gas and coal of any nation in history – is back in .

There are many losers from the US election, and the mood in Baku these two weeks will often seem bleak, but it will offer a clear opportunity for starting to work out a strategy by which climate change can be addressed without US leadership

As the annual global Climate Conference (COP29) continues its first week in Baku, Azerbaijan, we can already see what the impact of the next Trump presidency will be.

At home, Trump plans to dismantle President Biden’s environmental regulations in favor of the oil and gas industry. As he often screamed at his rallies, his policy is ‘drill baby, drill !’ That indicates the petroleum reserves under US national parks and in the fragile Arctic will be opened for extraction – even though the US already is the largest producer and exporter of crude oil of any country.

Internationally, the previous Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement – a process that for diplomatic reasons took four years to come into effect. If, as expected, a new Trump administration decides to again leave the Paris Agreement, it would be far more damaging. This time it will take only one year from the date the United States notifies the UNFCCC that it plans to leave. Next year’s pivotal COP30 would then be the last annual meeting the US attends as a party to the climate convention.

That withdrawal – combined with the probable end of all (?) climate assistance by the US to developing countries – will most likely (very possibly) herald the end of any chance for the world to achieve the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit for global temperature increase that was won in hard negotiations in in Paris in 2015.

It risks putting the world on a cataclysmic climate trajectory in this, the critical decade that was supposed to reduce the increase of the gases that impact on climate.

The infamous Project 2025 of the American far-right also calls for a future Republican administration to withdraw from the World Bank – which is the largest contributor to climate finance. That possibility is occurring right at the time that countries will be setting their new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), due on February 10th.

Developing country governments will therefore realize there will be less funding available to help implement their plans, so might reduce their ambition – at least for the next four years. Even if countries were able to obtain US funding, Project 2025 says this would be dependent on the recipients aligning with conservative religious values such as opposition to abortion.

The reductions may go further than the US government. Trump and US conservatives have attacked environmental, social and governance investing strategies (ESG) for years and attempted to intimidate companies.

Jefferies Financial Group has advised ESG Fund bosses to have ‘lawyers on speed dial’. So, an attempt to use the market to continue work on climate change may not be an easy option. Any CEO that goes against him will be aware that his or her company might feel the wrath of the White House – lost contracts being the obvious penalty.

There will be a wider erosion of multilateralism than on climate. The previous Trump administration withdrew the US from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). A new Trump Administration, led by anti-vaccine extremists, may move to limit engagement with the World Health Organization (WHO) as well.

What wealthy nations can – and must – do!

So how can other nations respond to this challenge?

The EU nations are faced with a tremendous challenge. Can they help fill the gap that will be left by the US while also defending their security and their democracies from active efforts to undermine them?

Can the EU and other developed nations implement a small but cumulatively significant climate tax dedicated to assisting adaptation and loss in the South?

Can the oil-producing North Sea nations tap far more of their own immense sovereign wealth funds to help others – particularly small island nations (Small Island States) – to avoid catastrophic climate damage?

Can the UK find increased motivation to rejoin the EU, at least on trade and environmental policy, given that Trump tariffs could cost the country $28 billion in lost exports1, dealing another serious impact to an already fragile British economy ? [1 Robert Olsen, Forbes magazine, Nov 9, 2024]

Can institutional investors, non-profit funders and corporations – even US corporations – increase their contributions to the Private Sector Facility of the Green Climate Fund, which provides funding directly to programs in local communities in developing countries?

Finally, can the Middle East petrochemical states fully share their vast wealth derived from oil to help the far-poorer nations facing climate risks caused by that oil? Can they support the universal phase out of oil, coal and gas – instead of simply building their own mega-solar plants to protect themselves as they continue to pump oil?

What developing nations can – and must – do!

Meanwhile, can the most rapidly-developing nations fill the political and financial gap and provide some of the lost social cohesion?

India has already pledged an important goal of 35 percent reduction in emissions intensity of its GDP by 2030 (which is not the same as absolute CO2 emissions reduction, but still a positive step), and net zero emissions by 2070. The official delegation of India to COP29 – together with government delegations of other rapidly-developing nations – could jointly announce their determination to increase their already announced Nationally Determined Contributions, and resist the loss of momentum from the US backing away from its carbon reduction goals .

Can India – the nation with world’s richest experience of both Western and Eastern cultural strengths, and the largest democracy – finally resolve its problems of racial and religious hatred, and present to other nations a new model of economic prosperity that lifts up and values the poorest as well as the richest?

Can China start to share technology and export growth to poorer countries in a model of genuine sharing that isn’t based on economic self-aggrandizement?

Can Brazil stabilize itself politically and nurture its immense ecological resources before they are cleared away and turned into cattle ranches?

Can South Africa walk past its internal political problems and various recent corruption scandals to become the sub-Saharan economic engine and political leader that everybody had hoped it would be?

Can Russia stop trying to repeat its own history of genocidal imperialism (see Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe) and fomenting insurrection, and instead act like a responsible nuclear power? After all it was Russia whose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol saw it come into effect.

A more isolated US will provide more opportunity for leadership by the most rapidly developing nations.

Perhaps it is now time for China, India and the most rapidly developing nations to significantly contribute financially to climate funds like the loss and damage mechanism that assists the very poorest and most vulnerable nations .

Perhaps countries like India and China, Brazil and Indonesia – whose cultures have thousands of years of agricultural experience in monsoon and rainforest ecosystems – could cooperate to provide expertise to farmers in other countries now facing tropical deluges.

The BRICS group now includes not only Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa and the UAE, but countries in a partnership relationship, like Indonesia and Turkey. It therefore includes six of the world’s predicted top 15 economies by 2030.

That is not an economically powerless group. It represents significant economic power. Will they use that power to help their brother and sister nations now even more at risk from climate chaos?

Or will they each merely attempt to mimic the worst aspects of Western vulture capitalism – taking as much possible, giving as little as necessary, while racing to exploit their own poor and working people, as well as the poor and working people in other countries ?

A coalition of the still willing

As always in policy and politics, perception can be as important as substance, and generating a public appearance of momentum can be a necessary ingredient for generating actual progress in negotiations. So, agreeing to address the problem is an essential step.

For the world to work, nations must be willing to work together. For the planet not to spiral into economic, social and climate collapse, individuals in each country must be willing to respect and care for other people – and other peoples .

There are many losers from the US election, and the mood in Baku these two weeks will often seem bleak, but it will offer a clear opportunity for starting to work out a strategy by which climate change can be addressed without US leadership.

The return of Trump will not only be the worst scenario for climate, of course. The impacts on civilians living in Ukraine and Gaza and Sudan, on women in the US and Afghanistan and Iran, on refugees and minority families throughout dozens of countries, and on democracy everywhere, will be potentially disastrous .

But the impact on climate might be the one that’s the most difficult – if not impossible – to reverse. ​Unless, that is, the remaining responsible governments – in a coalition of the still-willing – can creatively and cooperatively configure a strategy to minimize the damage, and constructively move forward for the common global good, together.

Felix Dodds is an Adjunct Professor in the Water Institute at the University of North Carolina. He has have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

Michael Strauss is Executive Director of Earth Media, an independent communications consultancy based in New York. His clients include NGOs, national governments, trade unions and UN agencies. He coordinated press conferences at the United Nations and at global environmental summits from 1992 to 2012 .

He is co-author of “Only One Earth – The Long Road, via Rio, to Sustainable Development” with Felix Dodds and Maurice Strong.

Currently, the Climate Summit in Glasgow—COP26—is slated for 1-12 November 2021. But will even this later date work for many participants?

By Felix Dodds, Michael Strauss, and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Apr 1 2021 (IPS)

Among the COVID-19 pandemic’s many damaging impacts, could a halt to international progress on environmental issues be added to the list?

A year ago, the Glasgow Climate Summit—originally scheduled for late 2020—was postponed to 2021, along with its preparatory meetings. This wasn’t the only critical intergovernmental process impacted. For instance, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the U.N. treaty on the high seas were also moved.

With uncertainty over travel and safety continuing into 2021, the postponement of meetings has continued, with the United Nations Environment Assembly and the Convention on Biological Diversity conference both being moved back many months.

The idea that negotiations could be held virtually has been largely ruled out. While it has worked for some processes on a limited basis, most experts acknowledge climate negotiations are too complex, sensitive, and high-stakes to be conducted over Zoom or WhatsApp

Currently, the Climate Summit in Glasgow—COP26—is slated for 1-12 November 2021. But will even this later date work for many participants?

Even though there is increased optimism in the US and Europe that they may get their populations mostly vaccinated by July or August 2021, that will not be true for many other regions. The varied pace in vaccine distribution is another example, if we needed it, of the disparities faced by developed and developing countries.

In an opinion piece by IMF Chief Kristalina Georgieva for CNN Business Perspectives on 7 March, she said:

“Even in the best-case scenario, most developing economies are expected to reach widespread vaccine coverage only by the end of 2022 or beyond.”

Why COP26 Needs to be In-Person and Inclusive

What does this mean for COP26? The idea that negotiations could be held virtually has been largely ruled out. While it has worked for some processes on a limited basis, most experts acknowledge climate negotiations are too complex, sensitive, and high-stakes to be conducted over Zoom or WhatsApp. They require face-to-face discussions to have any chance of meaningful success.

Furthermore, our experience in the past has told us that climate talks need to be inclusive and engage as many governments and stakeholders as possible, both in the lead-up to the conference and at the “main event” itself.

For instance, previous conferences in Cancun (2010) and Paris (2015) are remembered for their inclusivity and painstaking preparations, while less successful meetings such as those in Copenhagen (2009) or The Hague (2000) were unable to achieve this. If virtual negotiations are not a realistic option, then, it’s clear vaccines will need to be made available for government negotiators to attend and negotiate.

What about stakeholder groups who want to be there in person to lobby or put pressure on their governments? Will they be allowed to attend? If so, under what conditions? These are key questions that will need to be answered soon if COP26 is to have any chance of delivering what so many people want it to do.

Timing is Everything: The Case for Postponement

Already rescheduled once, COP26 is now timetabled for 1-12 November. Furthermore, the two preparatory meetings originally scheduled for 2020 were postponed to 2021, meaning there is still much to be done.

The first preparatory meeting is currently due to happen from 31 May to 10 June. This is now in doubt and a decision will be taken in the next few weeks on whether to proceed.

With such uncertainty, it could be argued that COP26 should be postponed again. Surely this would be better than trying to undertake preparatory meetings virtually, or holding a COP26 that is so diminished by travel restrictions that the meeting is but a shadow of its usual size and scope.

We hope those making these decisions take into consideration both arguments of inclusivity and the need for careful, thorough preparations as they continue to review this matter.

A Roadmap for a November COP

Should COP26 be held in November as currently planned, there are, however, some ways to improve its chances of success.

First, concerted efforts should be made to coordinate and strengthen the outcomes from President Biden’s planned Washington Climate Summit on 22 April, the G7 meeting in June (to be hosted by the UK) and the G20 Meetings in October (to be hosted by Italy).

Together, these could generate useful momentum and begin to refocus high-level political discussion on the climate crisis.

Secondly, the UNFCCC process could review its pre-COP26 scheduling to provide more time for in-person discussions in the lead-up to Glasgow. For instance, there is already agreement that a UNFCCC meeting will be held in Milan from 30 September to 2 October.

What if this already-scheduled event was to be expanded to at least 10 October? If this event continued through the month of October, it could have an even greater impact, allowing key negotiators ample time to prepare in person for Glasgow.

One challenge may be the timing of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s conference, now rescheduled for 11-24 October. Decision-makers will need to figure out whether the UNFCCC could meet concurrently with the CBD.

If it is not thought possible to run the two events at the same time, there are still some creative ways forward. For instance, the CBD could play an important role in accelerating discussions on nature-based solutions for climate change.

This is one of the key issues both the UK and Italy have identified for COP26. Informal negotiations could continue during the CBD meeting and the UNFCCC could reconvene formally on 25 October to see if agreement on any informal decisions could be progressed before the G20 on 30 and 31 October. In fact, the G20 meeting in Rome dovetails nicely into COP26, and could provide a welcome final impetus for it.

If preparatory meetings did take place through much of October in Italy or elsewhere, it would set up an almost continuous negotiating forum through to the start of November for national governments’ experts, diplomats and political leaders—as well as concerned scientists, business leaders, labor groups and NGOs—to meet in-person.

If planned carefully, it would mean only two or three geographically-proximate locations in Italy and the UK would be involved, which should help greatly in terms of dealing with the complexities of travel involving vaccinations, Covid testing, and so on.

In effect, it could create a climate negotiating ‘bubble’ where safe pandemic protocols would be possible and the necessary actors would have time to interact extensively and negotiate both broad agreements and details.

The G20 would also be an excellent end-point for intensifying pressure on countries to increase their National Determined Contributions as they head north for the Glasgow meeting just a short flight away.

What Key Issues Need Resolving at COP26?

At the most recent UN Climate Summit—COP25 in Madrid in 2019—several controversial issues remained unresolved.

In some cases, the negotiating gaps are wide. Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, told journalists, “in the 25 years that I have been at every COP, I have never seen the gap bigger between the inside and the outside.”

Some of these issues are quite technical. For instance, reporting guidelines on annual inventories for developed countries need to be reviewed. Governments will have to agree common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of greenhouse gases and address the emissions from international aviation and maritime transport.

There are also outstanding issues relating to land use, land-use change and forestry, as well as market and non-market mechanisms under the Convention.

These aren’t the issues you generally find in the mainstream media, which tends to focus on where we are on National Determined Contributions (country targets) and the contributions to Green Climate Funds, which should have reached US$100 billion a year by 2020.

Of course, the question of NDC ambition and the Green Climate Funds are absolutely essential, and progress will be key at COP26. However, the more technical issues are also critical if we are to be sure we are measuring progress consistently and fairly.

The Green Climate Funds may prove politically sensitive at COP26. For instance, the host country last year indicated a shift from an ODA contribution of 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI.

The timing is problematic, to say the least, and has been challenged in a letter by over 3000 global health experts warning that the cut will hit “some of the world’s most complex and challenging global health problems”. If you add to that the damage it will do to climate finance, are we moving to a perfect storm instead of a path to a more sustainable planet to live on?

Felix Dodds is a sustainable development advocate and writer. His new book Tomorrow’s People and New Technologies: Changing the way we live, travel, entertain and socialize will be out in September. He is the coeditor of Climate and Energy Insecurity: The Challenge of Peace, Security and Development with Andrew Higham and Richard Sherman.

Michael Strauss is Executive Director of Earth Media, a political and media consultancy that advises UN agencies, NGOs and governments on international environmental, development, and social issues. He served as the UN’s Media Coordinator for NGOs, Trade Unions, and Business organizations at the UN Summits on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (2002) and Rio de Janeiro (2012). He is co-author of ‘Only One Earth: The Long Road via Rio to Sustainable Development’ (Earthscan, Taylor & Francis), with Felix Dodds and Maurice F. Strong.

Chris Spence is an environmental consultant, writer and author of the book, Global Warming: Personal Solutions for a Healthy Planet. He is a veteran of many COPs and other UNFCCC negotiations over the past three decades.

Excerpt:

By Felix Dodds and Michael Strauss
NEW YORK, Mar 25 2020 (IPS)

With the coronavirus pandemic sweeping the planet and the governments of both wealthy and poorer nations overwhelmed by the demands of managing a response, the scheduling of this year’s critical UN Climate Summit is suddenly in doubt.

COP26 (formally, the 26th annual Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is planned for Glasgow, Scotland (UK) from 9-20 November. It will be the culmination of five years of negotiations since the historic 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

More than 100 presidents and prime ministers are expected to present their nations’ plans for carrying out the sweeping environmental, economic and energy changes necessary to keep the Earth’s warming to survivable levels.

In all, over 30,000 government delegates, intergovernmental officials and stakeholder representatives are preparing to attend.

The agenda of COP26 is deep and urgent. Besides reporting how they plan to reduce oil, coal and gas production and increase renewable energy to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C (and preferably 1.5°C), governments must agree how to calculate whether each is fulfilling its pledges, what steps to take to deal with those which haven’t, and whether the total reductions agreed to are sufficient to avoid catastrophic climate impacts (so far they’re not).

National leaders will be looking for positive grand visions to pull their people out of pandemic- induced despair. A new American President might be eager to reassert a proactive international role for the US

At Glasgow, governments must also fulfill the  commitment of the $100 billion a year they promised to help developing countries.  Those funds are to cope with the devastating impacts of sea level rise, intense storms, extended droughts, erratic cold and heat waves that have already begun to disproportionately affect poorer nations – and to help shift those nations’ energy production to renewables.

Governments must decide what role private business and the financial sector play in contributing climate funding. And they must approve the so-called ‘Paris Rulebook’ on implementation guidelines for zero emissions and climate resilience by 2050.

Progress on all of these issues is lagging far behind schedule.

Last year’s COP25, in Madrid, was expected to agree on a formula to resolve key issues. Instead it became the longest COP conference ever, failed to resolve virtually any issue, and passing them on to an already pressured COP26.

Meanwhile, the pace of the climate crisis continues to accelerate, with another year of record temperatures, catastrophic hurricanes, and unanticipated rapidly melting glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. And the public demand for action to meet the urgency escalated as well, led by a resurgent environmental youth movement inspired by Greta Thunberg.

The argument for a November meeting

So it would seem more necessary than ever to follow through with the November COP26 schedule.

For a world already decades behind the optimal carbon-reduction calendars suggested by environmentalists in the 1990s, the risks of further delay are huge.  We may already be on the verge of irreversible feedback loops like runaway deforestation in the Amazon, unstoppable desertification in China and the Sahel, massive shifts in thermal ocean currents that moderate the winters in Europe, and decalcification that could crash the populations of the world’s sea life.

With major fossil fuel corporations digging in to avoid action, taking the pressure off governments is an opening to fatal procrastination. As the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has calculated and Ms. Thunberg has tirelessly pointed out, the world only has eight years left in its allowable ‘carbon budget’ if it continues to emit about 42 gigatons of CO2 every year. So drastic reductions are necessary. Now.

The argument for postponing COP26

And yet. The world faces a sudden major pandemic that will impact all countries and affect all citizens. Millions will likely become ill and thousands will likely die. The focus of all countries is on containing the COVID 19 virus – as it should be.

Governments everywhere are enacting policies that would never have been imagined. Financial markets are crashing. The US Treasury Department has suggested a potential 20 percent unemployment rate.

Massive restrictions on public movement are being imposed and trillions of dollars in financial stimulus and subsidies are being spent. Public and private scientific expertise is being marshaled to solve medical emergencies.

The responses to the pandemic will impact the negotiations on climate. With only seven weeks to go before a key two week preparatory meeting in Bonn, virtually all flights to Europe are cancelled. It may be only be a matter of weeks before Bonn itself is postponed, or at best conducted virtually – which is a far more cumbersome process.

A second preparatory meeting, which could be expanded to take on the added work load, is planned in early October.  But it is scheduled to meet in Italy. Is it realistic that the Italian government will be sufficiently back to normal in order to host such a session by October?

In this context, it will be extraordinarily difficult for governments to assign the necessary political or economic resources to achieve a successful climate meeting this November.

​Even before the pandemic, it was already going to require exquisite timing, energy and finesse to achieve any degree of success in Glasgow. Besides the pre-negotiation failures, the willful climate obstructionism and catastrophic incompetence of the US government under Donald Trump, plus the self-imposed chaos of Boris Johnson’s Brexit in the UK, have left two of the world’s necessary climate nations nearly immobilized.

The only positive-case political scenario for a November COP would call for Democrats to sweep the US presidency and Senate on November 3 (one day before it becomes official that Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement) and barely a week before the November 9 opening at Glasgow.

Even if that were to happen, Trump would still be in office until January and his policy would prevail. (Indeed, one could visualize a defeated Trump spitefully trying to wreak havoc through obstructionist interventions by his negotiating team.)

And even if everything went well, because of the lack of prepared agreements, the most that could be hoped for from a November COP  is another seemingly ambitious and robust, but in reality a very amorphous Conference declaration on principles and promises.

How to postpone but increase momentum

Many respected voices currently arguing against a postponement are understandably concerned that any delay will take the pressure off governments to keep building on their commitments. It’s a valid fear.

The answer is to not take the pressure off governments. Yes, postpone the meeting, but instead of a full COP in November in Glasgow, the parties can schedule an additional special high-level Preparatory Meeting, on those same days in November, in Bonn where the UNFCCC is housed.

Such a special Preparatory-Meeting could resume negotiations working through the backlog of unfinished business from COP25 and the cancelled meetings in 2020. It would still be energized by any positive results from the US elections.

The full COP26 in Glasgow can then be rescheduled in 2021. While it might be possible to schedule it for Spring of 2021, the more realistic and likely option would be to simply move the current sequence of 2020 meetings  (June, in Bonn. October, in Rome) to the same calendar in 2021.

When COP26 does then meet in November 2021 the world will presumably have emerged from the coronavirus crisis. Economies will be re-starting, so Finance Ministries will be able to visualize budgets that address climate needs.

National leaders will be looking for positive grand visions to pull their people out of pandemic- induced despair. A new American President might be eager to reassert a proactive international role for the US.

As for the legitimate urgency of climate action, the pandemic might actually have bought the world a little time. The extreme economic slowdown currently projected would mean lower emissions this year of CO2. The carbon clock might be slightly pushed back.

It might also turn out that the concerted international action that eventually succeeds in defeating the pandemic – and the widely respected leadership by the UN’s WHO – provides a model for global cooperation for taking the unprecedented steps necessary to defeat climate change. Governments and individuals may realize that indeed we can successfully take extensive multilateral action when a crisis calls for it.

We’re all living in unprecedented times, and nations and people are sailing through uncharted waters. While it’s by no means certain that the optimistic scenarios above can guarantee success, they’d seem to provide the greatest hope for it.

Nations are now facing two immense and urgent crises. One must and can be dealt with immediately. The second also requires extensive financial resources and exceptional political will, but needs time to produce them.

It is time to re-schedule COP26 to 2021.

Felix Dodds has been a policy consultant to United Nations agencies, national governments and stakeholders for 30 years. He was Chair of the UN Conference on Sustainable Societies Responsible Citizens (2011). He was the co-director of the Water and Climate Coalition at the UNFCCC (2007 to 2012) and Co-director of the University of North Carolina’s Nexus Conferences on Climate-Water-Energy-Food (2014 and 2018).

He is the author or editor of 20 books on the environment and intergovernmental negotiations. In 2019 he was a candidate for Executive Director the United Nations Environment Programme.

Michael Strauss is Executive Director of Earth Media, a political and media consultancy that advises UN agencies, NGOs and governments on international environmental, development, and social issues. He served as the UN’s Media Coordinator for NGOs, Trade Unions, and Business organizations at the UN Summits on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (2002) and Rio de Janeiro (2012).

He is co-author of ‘Only One Earth: The Long Road via Rio to Sustainable Development’ (Earthscan, Taylor & Francis), with Felix Dodds and Maurice F. Strong.