COP30 and the absence of the USA

The absence of the US from COP30 in Belém, Brazil, is more than symbolic; it marks a critical turning point in global climate diplomacy. As the world’s largest historical emitter and a key architect of the Paris Agreement – the most comprehensive climate accord to date – the US has long played a central role in shaping climate ambition, financing, and enforcement. 

Its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a “con job”, risks leaving a vacuum in leadership and financial support that could derail the trajectory of global climate action for decades to come. However, the way forward will not be defined by who is missing from the process. The outcome will be determined by who steps up.

What is COP30 trying to achieve?

COP meetings refer to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These annual summits bring together governments to negotiate and advance global efforts to combat climate change.

COP30’s central theme is “Climate Justice”, with a focus on equity, inclusion, and support for vulnerable nations. Brazil, the host, is spotlighting indigenous voices and the Amazon’s ecological importance. The summit aims to ensure a just transition – helping developing countries adopt green technologies without sacrificing economic growth.

Finance is a cornerstone of COP30, which is scheduled to last two weeks but could continue for longer. Negotiators at COP29 in Baku agreed to a new global funding target aimed at helping developing nations tackle climate change. Known as the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), this framework replaces the long-standing (and unmet) $100bn annual pledge made in 2009 – and raises the stakes dramatically.

At COP30, the central aim regarding the NCQG is to move from commitment to implementation – turning climate finance targets into real, trackable flows of money that support developing countries in their climate efforts.

Under the NCQG, developed countries are expected to mobilise $300bn per year by 2035, while a broader coalition of public and private actors – including emerging economies – is tasked with delivering $1.3 trillion annually. The goal is to support climate mitigation, adaptation, and address loss and damage in vulnerable nations.

Developed nations in call to act

At COP29 in Baku, the $300bn figure was agreed upon after intense negotiations. Developing nations had pushed for developed nations to commit to $1.3 trillion annually, but this was not agreed. This higher figure, while included in the final text as a “call to action” from other actors – both private and public – but lacks binding language and clear accountability. This has left it open to questions on whether it is a goal or merely a gesture.

To bridge this gap, the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap was launched – a non-binding blueprint co-developed by Azerbaijan and Brazil. It outlines strategies to scale up climate finance through grants, concessional loans, private capital, and systemic reforms. The roadmap’s five pillars – Replenishing, Rebalancing, Rechanneling, Revamping, and Reshaping – aim to transform climate finance from fragmented efforts into a coherent global architecture.

However, critics argue the roadmap is more sketch than compass. It lacks enforceable mechanisms, sidesteps politically sensitive issues such as fossil-fuel subsidies and leans heavily on private finance, which critics argue risks deepening debt burdens for vulnerable nations. 

Moreover, the Paris Agreement’s foundational principle of equity – that developed countries must lead in providing finance – is being tested. The NCQG’s reliance on “all actors” blurs lines of responsibility, raising concerns about fairness and the risk of shifting burdens onto the private sector or developing nations themselves.

The NCQG is designed to be needs-based, inclusive and flexible – reflecting the evolving demands of a world grappling with intensifying climate impacts. But it also exposes deep fault lines: debates continue over who pays, what counts as climate finance, and how progress will be tracked. Developing nations are demanding grant-based funding and debt relief – not loans.

In short, COP30 is trying to bridge the gap between ambition and delivery – ensuring that the NCQG becomes more than a number and instead a functional, equitable system that channels real resources to where they’re most needed. The NCQG stands as both a promise and a test – of political will, financial innovation and global solidarity.

Paris Agreement updates

Few international accords carry as much weight as the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015. At its core lies a mechanism designed to hold countries accountable for their climate pledges: Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels. Right now, current commitments suggest that temperatures could rise by as much as 2.8°C, so much more needs to be done. To achieve this, each signatory nation must submit its own climate action plan – the NDC – outlining how it intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate impacts.

Unlike previous top-down treaties imposing targets on nations, the Paris Agreement empowers countries to set their own targets, tailored to national circumstances. These NDCs are reviewed and updated every five years, with the expectation that each revision will be more ambitious than the last – a principle known as the “ratchet mechanism”.

COP30 marks a key checkpoint for updated NDCs. About 113 countries have submitted new plans, covering nearly 70% of global emissions. The summit is focused on implementation, not new pledges, with pressure mounting on lagging nations such as China and India, as well as the European Union (EU).

Donald Trump’s absence and its impact

So, what will the absence of the US delegation mean for this process? 

It has certainly cast a shadow over COP30. President Trump has once again withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement – as he did during his first term. He has slashed climate funding, prioritised fossil-fuel exports and threatened trade retaliation against climate-forward nations. 

For example, the current US administration is putting intense pressure on vulnerable countries to vote against measures that would force shipping companies to pay for their carbon emissions. US officials have written to countries that support the measure threatening to impose tariffs, withdraw visa rights and take other retaliatory action.

The Trump administration has also proposed the revocation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 “endangerment finding” that declared greenhouse gases harmful to human health and welfare, and to scrap the federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. 

While some leaders see his absence as a relief, others warn it undermines global ambition and shifts leadership to China and the EU.

In the worst-case scenario, the US retreat triggers a domino effect. Without its financial and diplomatic muscle, climate finance flows could dry up, particularly for vulnerable nations relying on grants and technical support. The credibility of the Paris framework may erode, with other major emitters scaling back their commitments. Fragmentation could replace cooperation – putting ambitious targets in jeopardy.

The case for optimism

However, it is unlikely to be as bad as the doomsayers suggest. In a best-case scenario, the US absence may galvanise a new multilateral order. The EU, China, Brazil and India could step into leadership roles, forging regional climate alliances and accelerating clean-energy transitions. Indeed, China and India have been the biggest emitters in recent years, so it could move onus on to them to lead and cut.

Market forces, already favouring renewables, may continue to drive decarbonisation regardless of Washington’s stance. Private capital could fill gaps in climate finance, and subnational actors – states, cities and corporations – may double down on net-zero commitments.

Indeed, this is already happening. In the US, the “We Are Still In” movement has emerged as a coalition of mayors, governors, chief executives, university presidents and faith groups declaring their continued commitment to the Paris climate goals – regardless of federal policy. It is a bold statement: that climate action in America would not be dictated solely by Washington. 

Launched in direct response to President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Agreement in 2017, the “We Are Still In” movement quickly grew into one of the largest and most diverse climate coalitions in US history. The movement helped maintain US credibility on the global stage during a period of federal retreat. It also laid the groundwork for re-entry. When President Joe Biden took office in 2021, the US formally rejoined the Paris Agreement – a move widely seen as a victory for the coalition. Although the US’s absence from the COP process is cause for concern, this provides some room for optimism the actions of the Trump administration have not entirely derailed the process. 

So, COP30 looks set to be a test of resilience and resolve. The US may be absent from the negotiating table, but the rest of the world has a chance to prove that climate leadership is not the domain of just one nation – no matter how powerful.