COP30: With Trump and numerous heads of state absent, does the climate summit remain relevant?

A photograph from a decade ago, captured in Paris, now appears almost like an artifact from a bygone era. It depicts a large group of dignitaries in dark suits posing before a massive banner reading "COP21 Paris." At the center of the image, then-UK Prime Minister David Cameron beams, standing next to the future King Charles III and just ahead of China’s Xi Jinping. To the far right, former US President Barack Obama is engaged in a deep conversation with an individual who is partially cut out of the frame—a testament to the sheer density of world leaders present that day, making it nearly impossible for the photographer to capture everyone in a single shot.

This scene stands in stark contrast to the group photo taken on Thursday for this year’s COP30 summit in Brazil. The lineup is significantly thinner: Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi were absent, as were the leaders of approximately 160 other nations. Most notably, US President Donald Trump did not attend. The Trump administration has completely withdrawn from the process, announcing that no high-level officials will be sent this year. This mass absence prompts a critical question: Why convene a two-week multinational gathering if so many key figures are missing?

Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN’s climate process who oversaw the negotiations for the Paris Agreement, previously described the COP mechanism as "not fit for purpose" during last year’s session. Joss Garman, a former climate activist now leading a think tank named Loom, concurs, stating that "the golden era for multilateral diplomacy is over." He explains to reporters that contemporary climate politics is increasingly defined by which nations can capture and control the economic advantages of emerging energy sectors.

With carbon dioxide emissions continuing to climb despite 29 previous iterations of these meetings—each designed to reduce such emissions—many are questioning whether additional COPs will yield any meaningful results.

Trump and the Climate 'Con Job'

Upon returning to office, Trump’s first official act was using his signature marker to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, the 2015 UN treaty wherein nations committed to collaborative efforts to limit global warming to below 1.5°C. Addressing the UN General Assembly in September, Trump labeled the issue a deception: “This 'climate change' - it's the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world," he asserted. “If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.”

In tandem with this rhetoric, the administration has rolled back regulations on oil, gas, and coal extraction, signed billions in tax incentives for fossil fuel companies, and opened federal lands for development. Furthermore, Trump and his team have urged global governments to scrap their "pathetic" renewable energy initiatives in favor of purchasing US oil and gas, threatening punitive tariffs for non-compliance. Nations including Japan, South Korea, and European countries have committed to buying tens of billions of dollars worth of US hydrocarbons. Trump’s stated goal is to establish the US as the "number one energy superpower in the world."

Simultaneously, the administration is dismantling the clean energy legacy of his predecessor, Joe Biden. Subsidies and tax credits for wind and solar power have been reduced, permits revoked, and projects canceled. Research funding has also been slashed. When asked to justify the administration’s stance during a September meeting, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright questioned the longevity of support for renewables: “Wind power in the United States has been subsidised for 33 years - isn't that enough?” he remarked. “You've got to be able to walk on your own after 25 to 30 years of subsidies.”

John Podesta, a senior climate adviser to both Obama and Biden, offers a different perspective. He argues that “The United States is taking a wrecking ball to clean energy,” adding, “They're trying to take us back not to the 20th Century, but the 19th.”

The international repercussions are already visible. Last month, a pivotal agreement aimed at reducing emissions from global shipping was abandoned after the US, supported by Saudi Arabia, successfully halted the negotiations.

Proponents of the COP framework express deep concern regarding these developments. The primary fear is that if the US path continues, it may encourage other nations to lower their own environmental commitments. Anna Aberg, a Research Fellow at Chatham House’s Environment and Society programme, highlights these growing anxieties.

Source: BBC News Generated at: 2025-11-10 00:09:19 UTC