Latest / Columbia Energy Exchange / A Changing Atmosphere at the Upcoming UN Climate Summit

Transcript

A Changing Atmosphere at the Upcoming UN Climate Summit · Columbia Energy Exchange

• 0:00
  2025-11-04 CEE Elliot Diringer transcript
• 0:01
  Elliot Diringer: This COP is taking place at a very particular moment in a broader geopolitical context with the US stepping away, but also with just a broader shift away from cooperative approaches. A gathering like Belém is a recommitment to multilateralism. I think it carries importance in terms of the kind of message it sends more broadly, not just about our efforts to address the climate crisis.
• 0:02
  Bill Loveless: It's been 10 years since 195 nations signed the Paris Agreement on climate change, 10 hot years. The hottest on record in fact, and the outcome that the Paris Agreement sought—limiting global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—is now widely considered unattainable.
• 0:03
  There are other hurdles to progress as well. Many nations have not submitted their climate action plans called nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, to the UN. And President Trump says he plans to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which would render the US NDC moot.
• 0:04
  Still the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change marches on. Next week delegates, activists, and journalists will converge in Belém, Brazil for the 30th conference of the parties.
• 0:05
  So what are some of the possible outcomes of this year's COP 30? Will the absence of the United States even matter? How central a role might climate equity take in the discussions and what could come from a new forum that Brazil is planning for governments to discuss how climate policy affects trade?
• 0:06
  This is Columbia Energy Exchange, a weekly podcast from the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. I'm Bill Loveless.
• 0:07
  Today on the show, Elliot Diringer. Elliot is a global fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy directing its international dialogue on climate and trade. He brings decades of experience in climate diplomacy as a negotiator, journalist, and policy strategist. He first engaged with the topic as a reporter covering the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and later served in senior roles in the Clinton administration, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, and more recently as a senior policy advisor to special presidential envoy for climate, John Kerry, during the Biden administration.
• 0:08
  Elliot and I talked about the issues that are likely to dominate the upcoming COP and what might result from this year's negotiations as global trade and geopolitics present a changing atmosphere for this year's talks. Here's our conversation.
• 0:09
  Elliot Diringer, welcome back to Columbia Energy Exchange.
• 0:10
  Elliot Diringer: Thanks, Bill. Good to be back.
• 0:11
  Bill Loveless: Well, there's a lot to discuss about this latest round of UN climate talks, including its occurrence in Brazil's Amazon, its treatment of action and inaction among various countries on climate goals, including the US, and ongoing discussions over financing mitigation and adaptation. And another big topic for us today, Elliot, will be Brazil's plans to set up a new forum outside the formal negotiating process on climate and trade, something that you and others have said may be emblematic of where COPs are going these days. But let's start with the big picture. It's been 10 years since Paris and the adoption of a legally binding agreement on climate change. You were there. What are your thoughts now as you anticipate this meeting in Brazil?
• 0:12
  Elliot Diringer: Yeah, thanks, Bill. I think that is the right place to start the conversation. And I think every COP, this is COP 30, I think every one of them is an opportunity to take stock. I think all the more so this year given the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, and by that I mean take stock of where we are in the overall global climate effort, but also take stock of the Paris framework itself and how well is it delivering? And I think it's important that we do that with an understanding of what can be reasonably expected, frankly, of an international climate treaty. But in terms of where we are in the global effort, ahead of Paris, we were on a path for warming of four degrees Celsius or more. And Paris obviously set a goal of keeping warming well below two degrees and pursuing efforts toward 1.5. The latest estimates are that with the efforts undertaken since Paris, we're now on track for maybe 2.7 degrees of warming. So certainly not where we need to be, but a far cry better than we were 10 years ago. So are we better off by virtue of the Paris Agreement? I think the answer is clearly yes. Are we where we need to be? Absolutely not. And I think everyone who was in Paris 10 years ago would like to be much further along.
• 0:13
  Bill Loveless: Brazil is hosting this COP for the first time in Belém, a port that's the gateway to the Amazon no less. How does that location shape expectations for the meeting?
• 0:14
  Elliot Diringer: Well, I think, and it might be worth recalling that the launch of the global climate effort back in 1992, which was the signing of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, actually did take place in Brazil. It was the Earth Summit in Rio. So the climate effort is now back in Brazil. And I think Brazil has very deliberately chosen the location, Belém, gateway to the Amazon, to highlight the really vital role of tropical forests in the effort to contain emissions and as well as to highlight their efforts, which frankly have gone back and forth a bit. But under the present government, some sincere efforts are underway to preserve the Amazon. But I think ultimately it's about rallying support for stronger efforts, both in Brazil and elsewhere, wherever there are tropical forests. And Brazil is hoping to launch a new fund, a tropical forest fund. So that is one of the key outcomes they're aiming for from this COP.
• 0:15
  Bill Loveless: You've been at this for decades through Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Paris as we discussed, and now there's this next phase. How would you compare where the process stands today with those earlier turning points?
• 0:16
  Elliot Diringer: For the last few COPs, I think we've been in the midst of a transition from a more negotiation-focused phase to a more implementation-focused phase. We have the Paris Agreement in place. It took a few years to actually work out all the implementing rules for Paris. That's now done. So the machinery of Paris is in place, and really the focus is turning to operating that machinery. But I think it's also an implementation focus in the sense of recognizing that it's not all about the international framework, the Paris framework. This has been true from the start—to really successfully meet this challenge, we need action at every level. And increasingly, the COPs have come to recognize and highlight the different strands that need to contribute to the overall effort, whether that's state and local governments, what are called sub-nationals in a COP context, whether it's the private sector, whether it's youth, what have you. And Brazil is putting very strong emphasis on what's come to be called the action agenda. And those are all the efforts that are being mustered alongside the formal negotiations, which have been the traditional focus of COPs. So that's an important part of the evolution.
• 0:17
  Bill Loveless: And in terms of the action though, we look at what's been happening recently. 2025 is the year that countries are supposed to submit new or updated national climate plans, their NDCs, under the Paris Agreement. But I read that fewer than 70 nations out of 195 have offered new climate targets. So in terms of following up on Paris, there's a long way to go. And there's been a lot of inaction among countries, maybe most obviously the United States these days. What do you make of that?
• 0:18
  Elliot Diringer: Yeah, and countries are behind in getting their new targets on the table, what we call NDCs or nationally determined contributions. And under Paris, the expectation is that every country update its NDCs every five years. And in so doing reflect its highest possible ambition. So that's one of the means by which Paris sets an expectation or a norm. It doesn't mandate any specific level of ambition, but it does call on countries to bring forward their highest possible ambition. So at this point, we have what, a little more than a third of the countries have tabled their NDCs. I do expect by the end of the COP, most of them will have. We're certainly waiting for a couple of the major ones, the EU, the European Union, for instance, and India. Just this morning, the UNFCCC Secretariat put out its synthesis report. And this is routinely what's done when we have a round of NDC submissions like this. It's supposed to take a look across all the NDCs the countries have come forward with and tell us what it adds up to. Obviously with only 60 or 70 having been there in time, it's a very incomplete picture. What they did show was of those submitted, and it does include some major countries, emissions among those countries would peak before 2030. And peaking obviously is a really incredible turning point in bringing down our emissions trajectory. And they project that by 2035, the emissions of those countries would be maybe 18% below where they were at the time of Paris. So again, an incomplete picture, disappointing that more haven't come forward with theirs well ahead of the COP. But I do think some positive signs that countries are heeding the call, they're putting forward NDCs that are more or less in line with Paris expectations. And that looking forward suggests that we're starting to bend the global emissions curve.
• 0:19
  Bill Loveless: Yeah, I mean some would say that the NDCs should be more ambitious, right? I mean, are there any mechanisms to make sure that they are so, or is it ultimately a matter of political will among countries?
• 0:20
  Elliot Diringer: Well, all of this is ultimately a matter of political will in terms of the means that Paris affords to strengthen ambition. It really is sort of an institutionalized system of peer pressure. Countries agreed on a top-level collective goal, the well below two and pursuing 1.5, and they committed in a legally binding way to coming forward with their own NDCs. These are nationally determined. They decide their ambition level and the means by which they're going to achieve that ambition level. And then Paris establishes this transparency framework where countries have to regularly report on the actions they're taking, the progress they're making toward actually achieving their targets and submit emissions inventories. And these are subject to international review. So it's like, tell us what you're going to do, show us what you're doing. And then every five years, there's this collective global stock take. It was conducted a couple of years ago, and that's the basis on which countries then come back and tell us what you're going to do now five years later. So people refer to that as like a ratchet mechanism. But again, this can't be driven from the top down. It does have to reflect a mustering of political will within countries that enable them to come to a COP or ahead of a COP with ambitious NDCs. But it's that combination of structure and process and transparency that I do think is beginning to move things in the right direction. And the submission of the NDCs is perhaps the more visible part of that. What isn't really seen is the operation of this transparency mechanism. Countries have now had to submit their first biennial transparency report reporting on their efforts. Those are undergoing different forms of review, first expert review, and then peer review. And I think that hopefully that process will, well, I think what hopefully this all adds up to is greater confidence that others are doing their fair share. Because I think that's how in a political economy sense, the international framework translates back into domestic politics where the political will needs to be generated. If a country sees that other countries are delivering their fair share, then it's in a better position politically to muster stronger ambition on its own part. So I think that's the dynamic we're trying to create.
• 0:21
  Bill Loveless: Speaking of countries and the various positions therein, the US is absent from this COP 30. What are the practical implications of this for the United States and for the global climate efforts?
• 0:22
  Elliot Diringer: Yeah, so I mentioned that parties conducted their formal global stock take a couple of years ago. I think perhaps the biggest change since then is the election of Donald Trump to a second term in office. And I think you can look at the potential impacts on a number of scores. In terms of US emissions, obviously not helpful. It's going to slow the effort to reduce US emissions, but I think that's tempered somewhat by the fact that the US frankly is a shrinking share of global emissions. So that in and of itself, I don't think is decisive toward the success of the global effort. Obviously it sends signals. No other country is leaving the Paris Agreement, and we have to recall that this is not the first time the US has stepped away. And I think that the fact that everyone is still in the agreement, coming to the COP, is a reflection of continued collective determination to address the effort. The only penalty for withdrawing from the agreement would be a political cost. And I think at this point, countries are calculating that that cost is higher than whatever the cost may be of staying in. At the same time, when you see the world's largest economy stepping away from this effort, it doesn't help incentivize other countries to take stronger action. And frankly, it provides a little cover to other countries to not come forward with their best effort. Can't help but think of China in particular. Previous administrations have invested a great deal of effort in working with China to raise their ambition with some good results. When China last month in New York announced what its NDC would be, its next target for 2035, I think the general view was that they could do much, much better. That fits a pattern where China traditionally comes in with a low target and overachieves, so under-promises and overachieves. So it's consistent there. But China being by far the world's largest emitter, it on its own could really help steer the effort more quickly than it's going at the moment. And you could view that as frankly, a leadership opportunity, particularly with the US stepping away, but it doesn't appear as if they've chosen to take advantage of that opportunity.
• 0:23
  Bill Loveless: You suggested to me earlier that the US move recently to block adoption of a climate plan for international shipping is spurring some speculation of how the Trump administration might try to gum up this COP meeting in Brazil. Any more thoughts on that?
• 0:24
  Elliot Diringer: Yeah, I mean, and only speculation, frankly. There has not been any announcement that the US will be attending. Obviously the president has withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement. We remain parties to the parent agreement, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the treaty that was signed in Rio by the first President Bush. So the US is still a party there, so certainly has every right to be participating in the COP. I don't think the US needs to be present for its presence to be felt, and again, entirely in the category of speculation. But I guess I wouldn't be utterly surprised if the administration chose the timeframe of the COP to announce that not only is it withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, but it is in fact withdrawing from the UN Framework Convention. There's been an ongoing debate. There was in the first term, and thankfully the people who favored staying in won out. I'm sure those issues have arisen again. It wouldn't surprise me if we hear that.
• 0:25
  Bill Loveless: Yeah, it would be a pretty dramatic move, but perhaps not all that surprising.
• 0:26
  Elliot Diringer: No, and I think it would carry some heavy significance symbolically. And again, it comes down to how do other countries react? Are they willing to stay in and remain committed to the collective effort?
• 0:27
  Bill Loveless: One of the toughest issues for these meetings has been climate finance, a big concern in the global south. Last year at Baku, low and medium income countries sought what, 1.3 trillion in annual climate finance, but were forced to accept 300 billion by 2035. Maybe that's a starting point. What happens now when it comes to finance?
• 0:28
  Elliot Diringer: Yeah. So part of the outcome last year in Baku was setting up the Baku to Belém roadmap where the two COP presidencies, so Azerbaijan and Brazil together, are developing a roadmap to see by what strategies we could in fact mobilize up to $1.3 trillion. So this is not something that is going to be the focus of actual negotiations. It's something that those two countries will offer up. Obviously people will have reactions to it. It may be referenced in whatever political outcomes the COP delivers, but it's not a matter of negotiation. It's really just a roadmap.
• 0:29
  Bill Loveless: Do you see a balance evolving between public finance from governments and private capital flows for clean energy transition?
• 0:30
  Elliot Diringer: Well, if what you mean by balance is sort of equal contributions, no. And I think there's been a growing recognition over the years that governments alone will only ever be able to muster a fraction of what's needed. And the real challenge is using those funds as effectively as possible to leverage private capital. That's really where the bulk of the investment needs to come and where the bulk of it is for the moment. That's not to say that we don't need and shouldn't see stronger public finance. Obviously we do, but I think we can't count on the contributions from governments to make this work.
• 0:31
  Bill Loveless: Yeah, I can only think, Elliot, as we speak, this hurricane hitting Jamaica at the moment reminds us of the implications for these countries in the global south and how concerned they are about receiving adequate support going forward to help not only mitigate, but adapt to these climate-related changes.
• 0:32
  Elliot Diringer: Absolutely. And I'm sure we will hear a lot about that in Belém as we should.
• 0:33
  Bill Loveless: Yeah. Some developing countries argue that without much larger support, global goals are simply unrealistic. What's your take on how the equity debate is shaping up?
• 0:34
  Elliot Diringer: Well, I mean the equity debate has suffused the climate debate from the very start. And one of the ways that that debate has evolved over the years and has reflected in Paris and the negotiation since is a recognition that differentiation—well, let me step back. So in '92 in the Framework Convention, the principle that was agreed to address the equity challenges was common but differentiated responsibilities, a recognition that we all share some responsibility, but that by virtue of different things, like how much have we contributed to the problem, how equipped are we to address the problem, those responsibilities are differentiated. And the form of differentiation back at the start was rather stark and binary. There were developed countries and there were developing countries, and their respective obligations were quite different. And you saw that then later reflected in the Kyoto Protocol, which was not a workable model, frankly. And the evolution we've seen is kind of a softening of that distinction, a recognition that this is dynamic, not static. In fact, we've seen many developing countries increase their capacity, their economies have grown, they're in a better position, but increased their emissions. So if you now take stock of relative cumulative contributions to the problem, because the atmosphere sees the emissions of the last hundred years, not just this year's emissions, but in that sort of calculation, China is now looming much larger in terms of level of responsibility. So both with respect to contribution to the problem and capacity to address it, there have been dramatic shifts from that time. Now, that's all kind of at the level of principle. The real challenge is how you apply all that in practice. And Paris in that transparency framework I was talking about earlier, addresses it by setting basically the same expectations of all countries, but allowing countries that by virtue of capacity are not able to meet those standards, gives them more time to come up to those standards. So it addresses it on the basis of capacity. Now, the really difficult part of the equity equation comes back to finance because as you said, countries need assistance both in coping with the impacts of climate change and in really mounting full-fledged efforts to address their own emissions. And I think if anything, it's become harder for developed countries to commit the level of resources that are needed. And that's a really tough part of getting at the equity challenge.
• 0:35
  Bill Loveless: Some observers say the COP process has become too sprawling, more a trade show than a negotiation. It's a criticism that I think comes up frequently during and after these meetings. But do you think that's a fair assessment of these events?
• 0:36
  Elliot Diringer: Yes and no. And part of the taking stock, I suppose, could be taking stock of the COP process itself. And there have been a number of calls for reforming the process. Anyone who's spent time in the negotiating room could probably be sympathetic with the call for reforms, but at the same time, perhaps somewhat dubious of the potential for reform. And frankly, I'm not sure it's where we can best devote our efforts. The COP, as we talked about earlier, we have this whole action agenda thing, which has emerged, and what started out as just a formal intergovernmental negotiation attended by a few thousand delegates has now grown into something more akin to a trade show with tens of thousands of people. But I think that's a good thing. I think it is a focusing of attention, a mustering of interest and energy and putting it all in place. I mean, the fact that so many people converge on an annual basis to call attention to the issue, to offer up their solutions to the issue, to try to learn from one another, all of that is good. So as we said, it is about political will, and as long as COPs have a net value add to the generation of political will, then I'm okay with them being sprawling and messy.
• 0:37
  Bill Loveless: Yeah. You remain hopeful, perhaps optimistic over the whole process?
• 0:38
  Elliot Diringer: Well, I guess doing my best to remain as hopeful as I've ever been despite the headwinds we're encountering. So we've talked about the COPs and the Paris process sort of in isolation, and this COP is taking place at a very particular moment in the broader geopolitical context. And I think that obviously has a bearing on what's possible in Belém and the types of messages we might hear in Belém. And I think that with the US stepping away, but also with just a broader shift away from cooperative approaches, more unilateral emphasis, I think on the part of Brazil, and I'm sure many other countries, part of the importance of a gathering like Belém is a reassertion, a recommitment to multilateralism. So I think it carries importance in terms of the kind of message it sends more broadly, not just about our efforts to address the climate crisis.
• 0:39
  Bill Loveless: And there's the potential to look at things differently too, right, even outside the conventional framework of the COP meetings. And that brings us to a new initiative launched by Brazil, or will be launched, as I understand it, by Brazil at COP 30, addressing climate and trade, two issues that many people feel are colliding. You've been involved in this issue. Tell us about that.
• 0:40
  Elliot Diringer: Yeah, so André Corrêa do Lago, who is the incoming COP president for Brazil, we co-hosted an event with them last month in New York at Climate Week. And he said there that this forum, they're planning to launch the Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade, was in fact inspired by a process we've been running here at CGEP, the International Dialogue on Climate and Trade. Sounds quite similar. And we just recently put out a preliminary report from that dialogue reflecting the insights that we gathered from a series of regional workshops we conducted over the past year in Brazil and South Africa and in Singapore. So we saw the need for a space where countries could talk informally about the issues arising at the intersection of climate and trade. And I think these issues are emblematic of a couple of things. One of the things that I think we have seen as a consequence of the Paris Agreement is a closer integration of climate and economic agendas. And you see this reflected in what we talk about as green industrial policy. In the case of the US, the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, I think was a very clear example of that, of where under the previous administration, we were prepared to invest very significant sums in efforts that would deliver both on the climate front but also on the economic front with jobs and improved competitiveness. You see similar efforts underway in the European Union. Frankly, I think China has been at this a lot longer than anybody with great success. So you see governments turning toward economic levers to address climate, but also marrying it with an economic agenda that is really important to help build and sustain the political support needed for strong climate action. But when you invest enormous subsidies, when you talk about putting measures at your border like the European Union is in the process of doing that would put charges on higher carbon products, higher carbon imports, measures like that begin to have an impact on trade flows and other countries. Many other countries feel that those impacts are unfair. So this comes back to the equity question as well, and we see the equity debate playing out now in these conflicts that are emerging.
• 0:41
  So we've been surveying perspectives through our dialogue, and we will be carrying that forward next year. At the same time, Brazil has now decided it's going to launch this Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade open to all countries, broadly similar thematically to what we've been doing, but obviously on a much grander scale. They see this as a three-year initiative. And I think this is also illustrative of the transition we've seen in the COP process and the effort that Brazil is really emphasizing to use the COPs to launch actions that aren't necessarily within the formal negotiating track to help really focus attention on issues that need it. One interesting thing here is that these issues, these conflicts have arisen in a very stark way in the formal negotiations over the last couple of years. Developing countries, particularly the large emerging economies, have pushed at the last two COPs to put what they refer to as unilateral measures—so principally upset about the European Union's carbon adjustment border measure—they've pushed to get these items on the formal negotiating agenda. And there have been prolonged debates about that and not yet on the agenda. And frankly, the issue has become somewhat disruptive in the negotiations. So I think part of the effort by Brazil is to de-escalate, to provide another space for those discussions to take place. And as the host of this COP, the COP president, I'm sure they would like to avoid the kind of agenda fight that we've had the last two years. So this would serve that tactical purpose as well. But I think there's a sincere effort on their part to create a neutral safe space for discussion. I think part of the challenges they face is that they were one of the most vocal countries over the last couple of years pushing that agenda fight. And I think they're in the process of trying to persuade other countries that they're now the ones to help lead a more neutral approach here.
• 0:42
  Bill Loveless: Yeah, quite significant, Brazil's leadership in this, particularly for the voice it may give to the global south and the representation.
• 0:43
  Elliot Diringer: Well, I mean, within this particular process, I think for it to be credible, they're going to have to take off their Brazil hat. I mean, they would retain a seat, they would have their representative there, but as the chair or president of this effort, and they are aiming to have a co-chair, a developed country. But with that hat on, I think they really need to play the role of neutral convener.
• 0:44
  Bill Loveless: A new twist to this entire global discussion, frameworks, et cetera, on climate change. Elliot, what would success at COP 30 look like in your view?
• 0:45
  Elliot Diringer: So one of the things that often accompanies COPs is high and sometimes unrealistic expectations about what they can achieve. There's a hope that every COP is going to be the one that gets us on track. I think that's putting too much weight on these events. In this particular case, just given where we are in the cycle of negotiations and implementation, there isn't actually any one major negotiated outcome to be achieved. So in that sense, could strike some people as underwhelming. I think success, given the headwinds we face, given the larger geopolitical context, I think success is everybody reaffirming their strong commitment to this effort and to this process. So hopefully we will have other countries, most if not all, other countries coming in with their NDCs. Maybe there'll be some quick calculation of what they add up to. And hopefully that shows an even better, a stronger curve in the emissions trajectory downward. And I think that standing firm with this effort will be an important measure of success.
• 0:46
  Bill Loveless: And that's an important consideration, again, just in taking into account the United States' removal of itself from this entire process.
• 0:47
  Elliot Diringer: That's right, and I think we can count, frankly, on other countries staying in. What we also need to see is that they're in with ambition.
• 0:48
  Bill Loveless: Well, it'll be an important, very interesting meeting to consider, to look forward to in the days ahead. Elliot Diringer, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with us today on Columbia Energy Exchange.
• 0:49
  Elliot Diringer: Thank you, Bill. My pleasure.
• 0:50
  Bill Loveless: That's it for this week's episode of Columbia Energy Exchange. Thank you again, Elliot Diringer, and thank you for listening.
• 0:51
  The show is brought to you by the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. The show is hosted by Jason Bordoff and me, Bill Loveless.
• 0:52
  Mary Catherine O'Connor produced the show. Gregg Vilfranc engineered the show. Additional support from Caroline Pitman and Kyu Lee. For more information about the show or the Center on Global Energy Policy, visit us online at energypolicy.columbia.edu or follow us on social media @ColumbiaUEnergy. If you like this episode, leave us a rating on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast. You can also share it with a friend or colleague to help us reach more listeners. Either way, we appreciate your support. Thanks again for listening. See you next week.