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.

LONDON — U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was on the world stage last week demanding high-polluting fossil fuels are phased out of global energy systems.  “This is an issue that cannot be ignored,” he told the COP climate summit in Brazil.  Yet this week could see his own government water down commitments to phase out fossil fuels. Insiders say a drawn-out fight over the future of drilling in the U.K.’s Scottish oil and gas heartlands is finally reaching its conclusion.  It is a row which has split the governing Labour Party, pitted Miliband against the all-powerful Treasury, and will, some of Labour’s own MPs fear, undermine the government’s climate credentials and expose the party to even more political pain.  “If a progressive government with a big majority, in the country that started the Industrial Revolution, can’t hold firm on new fossil fuel drilling,” worried one Labour MP, “how can we expect developing countries to do what’s needed to tackle climate change?”  The MP, along with other officials and experts in this piece, was granted anonymity to give a frank view on sensitive political planning.  The decisions follow months of full-throated lobbying by fossil fuel companies, who argue tough action against high-polluting oil and gas firms will hit jobs and derail the wider economy — but also by green campaigners, desperate to hold Labour to its promises to make the U.K. a global climate leader.  And there is a growing risk for ministers that, as the government searches for a compromise to satisfy the party and balance fiscal demands with net-zero ambitions, it will land on a solution which pleases no one at all.  LICENSES, TAXES, ELECTIONS Two government figures and three figures from industry told POLITICO they expect minsters to announce a decision on North Sea licenses on Wednesday, to coincide with the Budget.  Labour swept to power last year on a promise to ban new oil and gas exploration licenses in the declining basin, as well as maintaining taxes on high polluters in the North Sea.  But there is likely to be a “pragmatic” shift on North Sea policy, one of the government figures said. Officials are looking at allowing oil and exploration on existing fields (so-called “tiebacks”) and potentially loosening rules on investment relief, they said.  Fossil fuel lobbyists argue that, without this sort of help, thousands of jobs and billions in investment are at risk.  “There is a sense that the industry are not crying wolf this time,” the same government figure said.  The tax is currently set to remain until 2030, but Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering scrapping it earlier, in a bid to drive the U.K.’s stalling economy. | Pool photo by Leon Neal via Getty Images They added that ministers will likely be making decisions with Scottish elections in May firmly in mind — conscious that the future of the oil and gas sector is a priority for many Scottish voters already worried about the decline of the North Sea economy, embodied in the closure of Grangemouth refinery.  Approving tiebacks would allow Miliband to say he has stuck to his election pledge while still expanding opportunities for oil and gas producers.  The Treasury is also due to decide the future of the Windfall Tax on oil and gas companies before the end of the year — a levy on profits hated by the industry but used to fund Miliband’s rush to move the U.K. to a cleaner energy system.   The tax is currently set to remain until 2030, but Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering scrapping it earlier, in a bid to drive the U.K.’s stalling economy.  Lobby group Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) claims the country could enjoy a £40 billion economic boost if the Windfall Tax was ditched as soon as next year.   A fourth industry figure said a decision on whether to approve drilling on the controversial Rosebank gas field — which already holds a license — could also come this week, although the field’s developers think it is more likely in the new year. Officials from Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero summoned OEUK for a meeting Friday in Whitehall, according to two of the industry figures. ‘POLITICALLY STUPID’  The idea of softening fossil fuel policy is alarming some on Labour’s backbenches.  Referencing the pledge not to allow new drilling licenses, Barry Gardiner, an environment minister under Tony Blair and now a member of parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee, said: “It is a commitment that I am sure the chancellor will wish to honor, given that yet another broken promise or U-turn would be as politically stupid as it would be environmentally illiterate.”  The pledge, he said, had “sat happily with the U.K’s commitment at the last COP to phase out fossil fuels.” Fellow Labour MP Clive Lewis said any watering-down would be a “mistake.”   “It would signal that the government is more focused on reassuring fossil-fuel interests than giving the public a credible plan for energy security and climate stability. Voters aren’t blind to that,” he said.  But their views are not shared across the party.  Mary Glindon, a Labour MP in the former industrial city of Newcastle, hosted OEUK in parliament earlier this month.  “The truth is that our once proud North Sea energy industry is shedding about one thousand jobs a month. … Without renewed investment, I fear for our communities and the prosperity of our young people,” she told an audience of MPs, lobbyists and business leaders.  OEUK, in a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer this September, seen by POLITICO, said that “without fiscal reform, changes to the regulatory framework and licensing will be insufficient on their own to transform the outlook for the industry.” | Pool Photo by Henry Nicholls via Getty Images Policy in the North Sea must show workers “that we are on their side,” Scottish Labour MP Torcuil Crichton told POLITICO earlier this year.   Gary Smith, general secretary of GMB Union — traditionally a champion of Labour which represents thousands of oil and gas workers — told the same OEUK event: “This is a crucial moment in terms of the Budget, and if the government gets this wrong on the future that the North Sea, it will be a strategic, long-term disaster for this country.”   A DESNZ spokesperson said: “We will implement our manifesto position in full to not issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields. “Our priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in line with our climate and legal obligations, with the biggest ever investment in offshore wind and first of a kind carbon capture and storage clusters.” PRESSURE ALL AROUND Even if the government is willing to upset its greenest backbenchers, it still won’t be enough to win round the biggest backers of oil and gas.  OEUK, in a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer this September, seen by POLITICO, said that “without fiscal reform, changes to the regulatory framework and licensing will be insufficient on their own to transform the outlook for the industry.” Robin Allan, chairman of the lobby group BRINDEX, also argues potential changes to the industry’s fiscal and licensing regimes would do little to revive the industry.  “The tweaking and tinkering of existing policies will not make the North Sea an investable basin,” he said. To restore business confidence, he argued, “wholesale reform is needed.”  There is nervousness inside Labour that attempts to navigate these pressures will leave the government, already struggling with voters, even more vulnerable.  The Green Party, helmed by media-savvy new leader Zack Polanski, is rising in the polls.   Labour would be “wriggling out” of their climate commitments if they pushed ahead with tiebacks and Windfall Tax reforms, argued Green MP and the party’s Westminster leader Ellie Chowns. It would be “politically mad to allow new drilling licences when the Greens are surging in the polls,” argued the same Labour MP quoted at the top of this article.  “The growing support for the [Green Party] shows that people want honesty, consistency and a transition [to net zero] that protects workers and communities rather than corporate profits,” said Clive Lewis.  And the pressure would not just come from the left.   Nigel Farage’s poll-topping Reform UK has promised to let oil and gas companies drill the North Sea basin until it is dry.  The Conservatives, too, are staking out a much stronger line backing fossil fuels.  “Anything short of an overturn of the [Windfall Tax] and … a complete overturn of the [licensing] ban is going to fall far short of what the industry needs at this time,” said Tory Shadow Energy Minister Andrew Bowie.  Think tanks close to Miliband’s own left flank of politics are getting restless.   Softening the regime in the North Sea might appear to have political dividends by heading off the Tories and Reform, said Alex Chapman, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, but Labour should resist it. “I think it would be a terrible, terrible decision,” he said. 

Laurence Tubiana is the CEO of the European Climate Foundation, France’s climate change ambassador, and COP30 special envoy for Europe. Manuel Pulgar-Vidal the World Wildlife Fund’s global climate and energy lead and was COP20 president. Anne Hidalgo is the mayor of Paris. Eduardo Paes is the mayor of Rio de Janeiro. In April, former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair wrote that our net zero policies are “doomed to fail.” This narrative — that the world is losing faith in climate action — has gained a lot of traction. But it is simply not true. Across the world, strong and stable majorities continue to back ambitious climate policies. In most countries, more than 80 percent of citizens support action, and according to research published in “Nature Climate Change,” 69 percent of people globally say they’re willing to contribute 1 percent of their income to help tackle the climate crisis. The problem isn’t a collapse in public support — it is the growing disconnect between people and politics, which is being fueled by powerful interests, misinformation and the manipulation of legitimate anxieties. Fossil fuel lobbies are working overtime to delay the green transition by sowing confusion and polarization. But this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference COP30, taking place in Belém, Brazil, is our chance to change this. It is an opportunity to be remembered not just for new pledges or targets but for rebooting the relationship between citizens and the climate regime, a chance to truly be the “People’s COP.” To that end, a new proposal, supported by the Brazilian Presidency and detailed in a policy paper sets out a vision for embedding citizen participation directly into the U.N. process — a Citizens’ Track. It calls for a dedicated space where ordinary people can be heard, where they can share how they’re organizing, what solutions they’re building to address the climate crisis, and what a sustainable future means to them. There are a number of reasons why this must happen: First, citizens are crucial for implementation. They provide the political mandate as well as the practical muscle. Communities have the power to accelerate or obstruct new renewable projects, support or resist the mining of transition minerals, object to or defend policy options, and make daily choices that determine whether the transition succeeds. But framing citizens as critical partners isn’t just pragmatic, it also defines the kind of transition we want to build — one of economic empowerment and social justice. A people-led approach cultivates a vision of more democracy not less, more agency not less, more protection not less. This kind of participation can be a deliberate counterweight to the forces of homogenization and alienation, which have hollowed out trust in globalization, and ground the transition in diversity, creativity and shared responsibility. This is not an anti-business agenda — it’s one that balances relationships between citizens, governments and finance, ensuring decisions are made with people and not for them. Second, participation builds fairness and resilience. A space at the multilateral level dedicated to advancing the peoples’ agenda offers a structured way to confront the questions that often fuel the political backlash against climate and environmental regulations: Who pays? Who benefits? Who’s left behind? More importantly, what can be done to resolve these trade-offs? When such concerns are ignored, resentment grows. The farmers’ protests across Europe, for instance, have been targeting the perceived unfairness of climate policies — not their goals. Elsewhere, communities are worried about the everyday realities of employment, growing costs and cultural change. A Citizens’ Track would allow these anxieties to surface, be heard and then addressed through dialogue and cooperation rather than division. Finally, participation also restores connection and hope. For too long, the climate movement has warned of catastrophe without offering a compelling vision of the future. A Citizens’ Track could fill that void, offering a modern, technology-enabled framework for deliberation and for reconnecting politics and people in an age of polarization. The farmers’ protests across Europe, for instance, have been targeting the perceived unfairness of climate policies — not their goals. | Mustafa Yalcin/Getty Images In an era dominated by algorithms that amplify outrage, a citizens’ process could invite reflection, reason and shared imagination. Everyone wants to know the truth. Everyone wants to live in a world of stronger communities. No one wants to inhabit a reality defined by manipulation, cynicism and emotional violence. A Citizens’ Track points to a different future, where disagreement is met with respect, rather than hostility. This is a vision that builds on a quiet revolution that’s already underway. More than 11,000 participatory budgeting initiatives have been implemented worldwide in the last three decades, allowing communities to decide how public resources are spent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has tracked over 700 citizens’ assemblies and mini-publics, and found that participation has accelerated sharply in the last decade, with digital platforms enabling tens of millions of people to deliberate key issues. From Kerala, India’s People’s Plan of decentralized government to participatory ward committees in South Africa and Paris’ permanent citizens assembly, citizen’s voices are being institutionalized in local, regional or national governance all over the world. And now is the time to elevate this approach to the multilateral level. Initiatives like these form already a distributed movement, an informal ecosystem of participation shaping the future one action at a time — but they remain disconnected. By opening a dedicated space that aggregates these discreet citizen and community efforts, COP30 could inject renewed energy into the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. A decade ago, the Lima–Paris Action Agenda opened the door for cities, businesses and civil society to contribute to global progress. Today, the next step is clear. We cannot let governments off the hook on climate. Nor can we wait for them. This is the future a Citizens’ Track can deliver — and the legacy Belém must leave behind.

Ban Ki-moon is the eighth secretary-general of the U.N. and the co-chair of the Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens. Ana Toni is the CEO of COP30. As world leaders gather in Belém, Brazil for this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), we are standing at a global tipping point. 2024 broke temperature records, as the world temporarily surpassed the 1.5 degrees Celsius target for the first time. And now, we’re on track to cross it permanently within just five years. This means adaptation action has never been more vital for our survival. From the year 2000 to 2019, climate change already cost the world’s most vulnerable countries an estimated $525 billion. This burden only continues to rise, putting lives at risk and undoing hard-won development gains, with global annual damages likely to land somewhere between $19 trillion and $59 trillion in 2050. Even more sobering, the world economy is already locked into a 19 percent loss of income by 2050 due to climate change, no matter how successful today’s mitigation efforts are. This makes one thing clear: The consequence of inaction is far greater than the consequence of action. The world must stop seeing adaptation as a cost to bear but as an investment that strengthens economies and builds healthier, more secure communities. Every dollar invested in adaptation can generate more than 10 times that in benefits through avoided losses, as well as induced economic, social and environmental benefits. Every dollar invested in agricultural research and development generates similar returns for smallholder farmers, vulnerable communities and ecosystems too. This remains true even if climate-related disasters don’t occur. Effective adaptation does more than save lives — it makes the economic case for resilience. And if we really want to tackle the crises of today’s world, we need to put people — especially those most vulnerable — at the center of all our conversations and efforts. Those least responsible for climate change are the ones our financing must reach. Here, locally led adaptation provides a path forward, focusing on giving communities agency over their futures, addressing structural inequalities and enhancing local capacities. Today, more than 2 billion people depend on smallholder farms for their livelihoods, but as little as 1.7 percent of climate finance reaches Indigenous communities and locally operated farms. Small-scale agri-food systems, which are essential to many in developing countries, receive a mere 0.8 percent of international climate finance. This is deeply unjust. These are the people and systems most threatened by climate impacts — and they’re often the best-placed ones to deliver locally effective and regionally adaptive solutions. To that end, appropriate investments in global networks like the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) could accelerate and scale technologies that can be adopted by these local systems. These tools could then be used to improve resilience and increase productivity in low- and middle-income countries, while also reducing inequalities and advancing gender equity and social inclusion. The world economy is already locked into a 19 percent loss of income by 2050 due to climate change. | Albert Llop/Getty Images Scaling such efforts will be crucial in moving toward systemic climate solutions. Our ambition is to move from negotiation to implementation to protect lives, safeguard assets and advance equity. But it’s important to remember that adaptation is distinct — it is inherently local; shaped by geography, communities and governance systems. Meeting this challenge will require more than just pledges. It will necessitate high-quality public and private adaptation finance that is accessible to vulnerable countries and communities. That’s why governments around the world — especially those in high-income countries — must design institutional arrangements and policies that raise additional public funds, incentivize markets and embed resilience into every investment decision. The decade since the Paris Agreement laid the foundations for a world at peace with the planet. And with COP30 now taking place in the heart of the Amazon, we must make adaptation a global priority and see resilience as the investment agenda of the 21st century. At its core, climate finance should be driving development pathways that put people first. In Belém, leaders must now close the adaptation finance gap and ensure funding reaches those on the front lines. They need to back investable national resilience strategies, replicate successful initiatives and put resilience at the center of financial decision-making. COP30 needs to be transformative and lead to markets that reward resilience, communities that are better protected and economies built on firmer, more climate-resilient foundations. Let this be the moment we finally move from awareness to alignment, and from ambition to action. Our collective survival depends on it. Question is, will our leaders have the political will to seize it?

BRUSSELS — The EU’s top climate envoy is picking a fight with China weeks before a high-stakes United Nations summit on global warming, already undercut by the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement. Some diplomats and observers were left wondering what Wopke Hoekstra hoped to achieve when he attacked Beijing last month for what he described as a “clearly disappointing” climate plan — especially after the EU had failed to present its own strategy. The move raised fears of a rift between China and Europe heading into the United Nations’ COP30 climate summit, where the two blocs will be dominant forces after U.S. President Donald Trump declared in January that Washington would no longer participate in the process and formally exit the Paris Agreement. But the Dutchman was unbowed. China’s promise to cut its climate pollution by between 7 and 10 percent by 2035 deserved straight talk, he said in an interview with POLITICO. “As much as I’m in the domain of diplomacy, there’s no point in suggesting that this is somewhere in the ballpark of almost being good enough.” Every country needs to take responsibility for their planet-cooking pollution, he said, adding that he would keep seeking dialogue with China. “We’ll continue to work with them, but this is a missed opportunity, in my view, of doing what is needed and doing what also is related to a responsible actor of this importance and this size.” The EU, racked by its own internal disagreement, has yet to submit a formal target, as it is required to do under the Paris Agreement. Instead, it has released a “statement of intent,” indicating that it will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by between 66.3 percent and 72.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. Hoekstra’s criticism sparked an extraordinary riposte from China’s foreign ministry, which complained to Reuters about the EU’s “double standards and selective blindness” and warned “such rhetoric disrupts global solidarity in addressing climate change and undermines the atmosphere of cooperation.”  On Monday, Hoekstra, the European commissioner responsible for climate, will sit across from Chinese negotiators for the first time since the spat broke out. The talks in Brazil are the final preparatory meeting before COP30 kicks off in the Amazon city of Belém in November.   With the White House seeking every way possible to promote fossil fuels and downplay the surging global investment in clean energy, much of the rest of the world is looking to China and the EU to step in and send an alternative and unified message about the shift away from coal, oil and gas. Asked who would win in a war of words between China and the EU, Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, replied flatly: “Trump.” Hoekstra’s response to China’s climate goal stood out among European and U.N. officials, even many climate advocacy groups, who largely swerved conflict and accepted Beijing had a track record of underpromising and overdelivering on its pledges.  “Criticism of others can only be credible if we lead by example, and Hoekstra’s remarks come across more as an attempt to deflect from Europe’s own shortcomings than as a coherent climate strategy,” said European Green lawmaker Michael Bloss.  “Right now, we talk a big game but have nothing to show for it,” Bloss told POLITICO, referring to the EU missing the deadline to submit its 2035 climate plan. “That’s not how you motivate the rest of the world to act,” he added, warning that “without close EU-China cooperation, the COP30 process is in danger.”  But “Commissioner Hoekstra’s statement was walking a very fine line,” tempered Sébastien Treyer, executive director of the French Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, or IDDRI, a think tank. “It would have been unthinkable for the European commissioner for climate action to simply welcome China’s [climate plan] from a diplomatic point of view,” he added.  What this leads to, however, is “a statement that creates a rather harsh atmosphere of mutual criticism, rather than a positive learning dynamic” ahead of COP30, Treyer noted.  PUNCHING HARD  Hoekstra’s approach has some support in Europe’s capitals, where pointing to China’s continued coal expansion is a common excuse for doing less at home. French officials, for example, have been adamant about the need for China to step up its efforts in the global fight against climate change.  China’s 2035 climate target was “absolutely disappointing … they can do a lot better,” said a French government official, who, like others in this article was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters. They vowed to keep “push[ing] China to fully embrace its role as a climate leader, which it should logically assume” ahead of COP30, because it is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, one of the top historical emitters, and has the “economic and financial means” to have a “real climate leadership policy.” Others questioned whether Hoekstra’s strategy is the right one, especially after his boss European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had just endured the embarrassment of turning up to a U.N. summit in New York without a formal plan from the EU. The rift on climate policy between the two powers is coming at a moment when trade tensions could be exacerbated as the EU looks to ramp up its trade defense measures against China.  “Hoekstra is a liability,” said a senior climate diplomat from a European country, who disagrees with his aggressive approach toward China. “He always looks and sounds as if he’s just walked off the 18th green and wants a glass of wine with his Caesar salad. I don’t know anyone who thinks he has the requisite gravitas.” Hoekstra brushed off the criticism toward his approach, telling an event in Brussels earlier this month, that “we tend to overestimate our ability to, at scale, influence [China’s] decision-making.”  “I’m not convinced at all that if we had tabled something earlier that it would have moved the needle,” he said. But added that, when China is responsible for about 30 percent of global emissions, “if then the response is a 7 to 10 [percent reduction of emissions], it’s really hard, even if you want to make as much of a diplomatic effort as possible, to do as if that is enough.”  A Commission official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said Hoekstra’s team was in discussions with the Chinese over a bilateral meeting ahead of COP30. But that won’t happen in Brazil on Monday because Beijing was not sending a representative of Hoekstra’s ministerial rank, the official said. Canada, China and the EU will lead a ministerial climate summit in Toronto, Ontario at the end of the month, presenting a chance for a meeting. The climate commissioner’s relationship with China contrasts with that of Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera, his direct overseer in the Commission structure. Ribera, a veteran climate diplomat, recently held a meeting with the former Chinese climate envoy Xie Zhenhua in Brussels — an unusual bending of protocol. In July, after Hoekstra signaled the EU would not sign a joint statement with China unless it showed greater “ambition,” Ribera brokered a deal in which China made no such concession.   Speaking to POLITICO, Ribera emphasized the need for COP30 to project unity against the fossil fuel revisionism of the Trump administration. “In the COP, in Belém this year, we need to come up providing a clear message on the multilateral system being prepared to work together and being supported by all parties — almost all parties,” she told POLITICO. She was not responding directly to Hoekstra’s war of words with the Chinese.   Steffen Menzel, program leader at the climate think tank E3G, said Hoekstra and Ribera were representing “different voices, different tones in Brussels and across the EU.” He saw no problem with Hoekstra’s tougher language.  “It’s the right way to go for the EU to be very clear with the Chinese engagement or climate action when it is insufficient, and that doesn’t rule out cooperation,” he said. “The EU can and needs to be there with their own strong position.”  Nicolas Camut contributed to this report. 

LIVERPOOL, England — Prime Minister Keir Starmer must go to the COP climate summit to show “there is still climate leadership,” despite Donald Trump’s attacks on the science of global warming, the U.K.’s former climate minister said. While Starmer’s travel plans have not yet been confirmed, he is reportedly not planning to attend COP30’s leaders’ summit, due to be held in Brazil in November. It would be the first time a British prime minister has skipped the event since 2019. But Kerry McCarthy, who served as climate minister from July 2024 until a government reshuffle earlier in September, told POLITICO at Labour’s party conference in Liverpool that Starmer should attend, to demonstrate the continued “imperative” of international collaboration on climate. “It was a really important moment when Keir went to COP last year,” McCarthy said. “Particularly because Trump had just won the election, that left a vacuum in terms of international leadership and it was very much seen that the U.K. [stepped in].” Now, with Trump stepping up his attacks on the climate agenda in last week’s United Nations speech, McCarthy said Starmer should go to this year’s COP “to signal that there is still that intent to show leadership.” “There are so many Americans I have met since the Trump win who want to say ‘he doesn’t speak for us,’” McCarthy added. Starmer attended the COP29 conference in Azerbaijan in 2024 and announced an ambitious new U.K. greenhouse gas emissions target for 2035. McCarthy, however, conceded that it was probably fruitless to try to lobby Trump directly on climate change. “I’m not sure how useful it would be to have a conversation, given the extent to which he has disengaged,” she said. No. 10 Downing Street was approached for comment.