BRUSSELS — More than 80 percent of Europe’s companies will be freed from environmental-reporting obligations after EU institutions reached a deal on a proposal to cut green rules on Monday.   The deal is a major legislative victory for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her push cut red tape for business, one of the defining missions of her second term in office. However, that victory came at a political cost: The file pushed the coalition that got her re-elected to the brink of collapse and led her own political family, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), to team up with the far right to get the deal over the line. The new law, the first of many so-called omnibus simplification bills, will massively reduce the scope of corporate sustainability disclosure rules introduced in the last political term. The aim of the red tape cuts is to boost the competitiveness of European businesses and drive economic growth. The deal concludes a year of intense negotiations between EU decision-makers, investors, businesses and civil society, who argued over how much to reduce reporting obligations for companies on the environmental impacts of their business and supply chains — all while the effects of climate change in Europe were getting worse. “This is an important step towards our common goal to create a more favourable business environment to help our companies grow and innovate,” said Marie Bjerre, Danish minister for European affairs. Denmark, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU until the end of the year, led the negotiations on behalf of EU governments. Marie Bjerre, Den|mark’s Minister for European affairs, who said the agreement was an important step for a more favourable business environment. | Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images Proposed by the Commission last February, the omnibus is designed to address businesses’ concerns that the paperwork needed to comply with EU laws is costly and unfair. Many companies have been blaming Europe’s overzealous green lawmaking and the restrictions it places on doing business in the region for low economic growth and job losses, preventing them from competing with U.S. and Chinese rivals.   But Green and civil society groups — and some businesses too — argued this backtracking would put environmental and human health at risk. That disagreement reverberated through Brussels, disturbing the balance of power in Parliament as the EPP broke the so-called cordon sanitaire — an unwritten rule that forbids mainstream parties from collaborating with the far right — to pass major cuts to green rules. It set a precedent for future lawmaking in Europe as the bloc grapples with the at-times conflicting priorities of boosting economic growth and advancing on its green transition. The word “omnibus” has since become a mainstay of the Brussels bubble vernacular with the Commission putting forward at least 10 more simplification bills on topics like data protection, finance, chemical use, agriculture and defense. LESS PAPERWORK   The deal struck by negotiators from the European Parliament, EU Council and the Commission includes changes to two key pieces of legislation in the EU’s arsenal of green rules: The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).  The rules originally required businesses large and small to collect and publish data on their greenhouse gas emissions, how much water they use, the impact of rising temperatures on working conditions, chemical leakages and whether their suppliers — which are often spread across the globe — respect human rights and labor laws.    Now the reporting rules will only apply to companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in net turnover, while only the largest companies — with 5,000 employees and at least €1.5 billion in net turnover — are covered by supply chain due diligence obligations. They also don’t have to adopt transition plans, with details on how they intend to adapt their business model to reach targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.   Importantly the decision-makers got rid of an EU-level legal framework that allowed civilians to hold businesses accountable for the impact of their supply chains on human rights or local ecosystems. MEPs have another say on whether the deal goes through or not, with a final vote on the file slated for Dec. 16. It means that lawmakers have a chance to reject what the co-legislators have agreed to if they consider it to be too far from their original position.

LONDON — The British government said it opposes attempts to cool the planet by spraying millions of tons of dust into the atmosphere — but did not close the door to a debate on regulating the technology.  The comments in parliament Thursday came after a POLITICO investigation revealed an Israeli-U.S. company Stardust Solutions aimed to be capable of deploying solar radiation modification, as the technology is called, inside this decade. “We’re not in favor of solar radiation modification given the uncertainty around the potential risks it poses to the climate and environment,” Leader of the House of Commons Alan Campbell said on behalf of the government. Stardust has recently raised $60 million in finance from venture capital investors, mostly based in Silicon Valley and Britain. It is the largest ever investment in the field.  The emergence of a well-funded, private sector actor moving aggressively toward planet cooling capability has led to calls for the global community to regulate the field.  Citing POLITICO’s reporting, Labour MP Sarah Coombes asked the government: “Given the potential risks of this technology, could we have a debate on how Britain will work with other countries to regulate experiments with the earth’s atmosphere, and ensure we cooperate with other countries on solutions that actually tackle the root cause of climate change?” Campbell signaled the government was open to further discussion of the issue by inviting Coombes to raise the point the next time Technology Secretary Liz Kendall took questions in parliament.  Stardust’s CEO Yanai Yedvab told POLITICO the company was also in favor of regulation to ensure the technology was deployed safely and after proper public debate. Some scientists and experts, though, have raised concerns about the level of secrecy under which the company has conducted its research.  Stardust is proposing to use high-flying aircraft to dump millions of tons of a proprietary particle into the stratosphere, around 12 miles above the Earth’s surface. The technology mimics the short term global cooling that occurs when volcanoes blow dust and gas high into the sky, blocking a small amount of the sun’s heat.  Most scientists agree this could temporarily lower the Earth’s surface temperature, helping to avert some impacts of global warming. The side effects, however, are not well researched.  The U.K. has one of the world’s best funded research programs looking at the impacts of its potential use, via its Advanced Research and Invention Agency.  “We do work closely with the international research community to evaluate the latest scientific evidence,” said Campbell.   POLITICO has meanwhile been blocked from receiving internal government advice on solar radiation modification. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has refused to release the documents, arguing this would have a “chilling effect” on the candor of advice by officials to ministers.  In a response to a records request, DESNZ Director of International Climate Matt Toombs said: “Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change. Any research into cooling technologies in no way alleviates the urgent need for increased decarbonization efforts.”

TOURNAI, Belgium — Back in 2016, a freak storm destroyed the entire strawberry crop on Hugues Falys’ farm in the province of Hainaut in west Belgium. It was one of a long string of unusual natural calamities that have ravaged his farm, and which he says are becoming more frequent because of climate change. Falys now wants those responsible for the climate crisis to pay him for the damage done — and he’s chosen as his target one of the world’s biggest oil companies: TotalEnergies. In a packed courtroom in the local town of Tournai, backed by a group of NGOs and a team of lawyers, Falys last week made his case to the judges that the French fossil fuel giant should be held responsible for the climate disasters that have decimated his yields. It’s likely to be a tricky case to make. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court, told POLITICO in a statement that making a single producer responsible for the collective impact of centuries of fossil fuel use “makes no sense.” But the stakes are undeniably high: If Falys is successful, it could create a massive legal precedent and open a floodgate for similar litigation against other fossil fuel companies across Europe and beyond. “It’s a historic day,” Falys told a crowd outside the courtroom. “The courts could force multinationals to change their practices.” A TOUGH ROW TO HOE While burning fossil fuels is almost universally accepted as the chief cause of global warming, the impact is cumulative and global, the responsibility of innumerable groups over more than two centuries. Pinning the blame on one company — even one as huge as TotalEnergies, which emits as much CO2 every year as the whole of the U.K. combined — is difficult, and most legal attempts to do so have failed. Citing these arguments, TotalEnergies denies it’s responsible for worsening the droughts and storms that Falys has experienced on his farm in recent years. The case is part of a broader movement of strategic litigation that aims to test the courts and their ability to enforce changes on the oil and gas industry. More than 2,900 climate litigation cases have been filed globally to date. “It’s the first time that a court, at least in Belgium, can recognize the legal responsibility, the accountability of one of those carbon polluters in the climate damages that citizens, and also farmers like Hugues, are suffering and have already suffered in the previous decade,” Joeri Thijs, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium, told POLITICO in front of the courtroom. MAKING HISTORY Previous attempts to pin the effects of climate change on a single emitter have mostly failed, like when a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company RWE arguing its emissions contributed to melting glaciers putting his village at risk of flooding. But Thijs said that “the legal context internationally has changed over the past year” and pointed to the recent “game-changer” legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which establishes the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court. | Gregoire Campione/Getty Images “There have been several … opinions that clearly give this accountability to companies and to governments; and so we really hope that the judge will also take this into account in his judgment,” he said. Because “there are various actors who maintain this status quo of a fossil-based economy … it is important that there are different lawsuits in different parts of the world, for different victims, against different companies,” said Matthias Petel, a member of the environment committee of the Human Rights League, an NGO that is also one of the plaintiffs in the case. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. But it’s also trying to go “one step further” by not only looking backward at the historical contribution of private actors to climate change to seek financial compensation, he explained, but also looking forward to force these companies to change their investment policies and align them with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. “We are not just asking them to compensate the victim, we are asking them to transform their entire investment model in the years to come,” Petel said. DIRECT IMPACTS In recent years, Falys, who has been a cattle farmer for more than 35 years, has had to put up with more frequent extreme weather events. The 2016 storm that decimated his strawberry crop also destroyed most of his potatoes. In 2018, 2020 and 2022, heat waves and droughts affected his yields and his cows, preventing him from harvesting enough fodder for his animals and forcing him to buy feed from elsewhere. These events also started affecting his mental health on top of his finances, he told POLITICO. “I have experienced climate change first-hand,” he said. “It impacted my farm, but also my everyday life and even my morale.” Falys says he’s tried to adapt to the changing climate. He transitioned to organic farming, stopped using chemical pesticides and fertilizers on his farm, and even had to reduce the size of his herd to keep it sustainable. Yet he feels that his efforts are being “undermined by the fact that carbon majors like TotalEnergies continue to explore for new [fossil fuel] fields, further increasing their harmful impact on the climate.” FIVE FAULTS Falys’ lawyers spent more than six hours last Wednesday quoting scientific reports and climate studies aimed at showing the judges the direct link between TotalEnergies’ fossil fuel production, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their use, and their contribution to climate change and the extreme weather events that hit Falys’ farm. They want TotalEnergies to pay reparations for the damages Falys suffered. But they’re also asking the court to order the company to stop investing in new fossil fuel projects, to drastically reduce its emissions, and to adopt a transition plan that is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. | Klaudia Radecka/Getty Images TotalEnergies’ culpability derives from five main faults, the lawyers argued. They claimed the French oil giant continued to exploit fossil fuels despite knowing the impact of their related emissions on climate change; it fabricated doubt about scientific findings establishing this connection; it lobbied against stricter measures to tackle global warming; it adopted a transition strategy that is not aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement; and it engaged in greenwashing, misleading its customers when promoting its activities in Belgium. “Every ton [of CO2 emissions] counts, every fraction of warming matters” to stop climate change, the lawyers hammered all day on Wednesday. “Imposing these orders would have direct impacts on alleviating Mr. Falys’ climate anxiety,” lawyer Marie Doutrepont told the court, urging the judges “to be brave,” follow through on their responsibilities to protect human rights, and ensure that if polluters don’t want to change their practices voluntarily, “one must force them to.” TOTAL’S RESPONSE But the French oil major retorted that Falys’ action “is not legitimate” and has “no legal basis.” In a statement shared with POLITICO, TotalEnergies said that trying to “make a single, long-standing oil and gas producer (which accounts for just under 2 percent of the oil and gas sector and is not active in coal) bear a responsibility that would be associated with the way in which the European and global energy system has been built over more than a century … makes no sense.” Because climate change is a global issue and multiple actors contribute to it, TotalEnergies cannot hold individual responsibility for it, the fossil fuel giant argues. It also said that the company is reducing its emissions and investing in renewable energy, and that targeted, sector-specific regulations would be a more appropriate way to advance the energy transition rather than legal action. The French company challenges the assertion that it committed any faults, saying its activities “are perfectly lawful” and that the firm “strictly complies with the applicable national and European regulations in this area.” TotalEnergies’ legal counsel will have six hours to present their arguments during a second round of hearings on Nov. 26 in Tournai. The court is expected to rule in the first half of next year.

BELÉM, Brazil — Turkey will host next year’s U.N. climate conference after Australia’s bid imploded. Turkey and Australia had faced off for more than a year over the talks’ location, an impasse that extended almost until the final day of the current climate summit in Belém, Brazil. If no resolution had emerged, next year’s summit would have defaulted to Germany, which has said it wouldn’t have time to plan the event properly. While Turkey will provide the venue for the 2026 talks, Australia will hold the presidency — and therefore the diplomacy, said Chris Bowen, Australia’s minister for climate change and energy. That means that “I would have all the powers of the COP presidency,” he said. A Turkish official, who did not give his name, said the final deal would be announced on Thursday. Turkey had proposed hosting the talks in the Mediterranean city of Antalya. It is a highly unusual arrangement for the annual climate conference, which normally has a single host and presidency. But it’s not unprecedented: In 2017, Germany hosted a Fijian-led conference. “Obviously it would be great if Australia could have it all. But we can’t have it all,” Bowen said. “It’s also a significant concession for Turkey.” He added that before the summit, separate talks will occur in the Pacific where money would be raised to help that region cope with climate change. German State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth, whose country chairs the Western Europe and Others Group from which the host of next year’s talks is due to be selected based on the rotating system of the U.N., put a positive spin on the discussions. “There was a positive spirit,” he said. “It’s something extraordinary that two countries from very different sides of the planet but being in one group reached an agreement.” But others were more candid. “It’s an ugly solution,” said a European diplomat who was granted anonymity to discuss the confidential discussions. “Turkey just wants to showboat and don’t care about content really, and Aussies do but they don’t control the event and logistics.” The new host country’s climate track record is mixed. Turkey aims to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2053, a date chosen more for its symbolism — 600 years after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople — than science. This year, it presented a new climate target that will see its emissions increase by around 16 percent until 2035. The country overtook Poland last year as Europe’s top coal user, and harbors ambitions of stepping up gas exploration to become a regional transit hub. Australia had secured the backing of the U.K. and some European countries, as well as the Pacific region, with which it planned to co-host the summit. But during a series of long meetings on Wednesday, Australia failed to persuade Turkey to back down. Australia had been favored to host the talks in the city of Adelaide. But on Tuesday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese blinked, saying his country would not block Turkey as host country if Ankara were to prevail. His office later clarified the statement to indicate he meant that he expected Turkey to do the same if Australia won the competition. But by then, news stories had circulated around the world that Australia had backed down.

LONDON — Rachel Reeves needs at least one good news story to sell. The under-fire U.K. finance minister is gearing up for a tricky budget next week — and slashing Brits’ energy bills could give her something to shout about. Officials in the Treasury and at No. 10 Downing Street are exploring ways to cut domestic energy costs by shifting some levies currently added to household bills into general taxation, said three government figures granted anonymity to discuss pre-budget planning.  Ministers are targeting a cut of between £150 and £170 on an annual household bill, according to one of the three figures. That would get Chancellor Reeves and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband halfway toward a totemic election promise of slashing bills by £300 by 2030 — and give the government something positive to pitch on budget day.  Officials are looking at “big numbers,” said another of the figures. “It could be a significant moment.”  A cut to VAT on energy bills is also under consideration, they said, echoing previous reports.  Number crunching by green policy wonks shows how Reeves, via those changes to levies and a potential VAT cut, could get the Treasury to its magic number.  PRIORITY: BILLS  Energy bills are the single biggest factor cited by voters as a cost-of-living concern, according to polls. Left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is highly influential in government circles, has called on Labour ministers to launch a “war on bills” campaign, modeled on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s approach in Australia.  The hope in the Treasury is that, by conjuring up a sum large enough to win some prominent headlines, Reeves might land a good news story on energy bills on a day otherwise set to be dominated by a “smorgasbord” of unpopular tax rises.  Energy prices were “still very high for people,” Reeves acknowledged earlier this month. She pledged to make action on the cost of living “one of the three priorities for the budget,” alongside reducing national debt and protecting the National Health Service.  Last week, nine Labour MPs, including the chair of parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee, Toby Perkins, wrote to Reeves urging her to move all social and environmental levies from bills into taxation.  Advocates regard this as a fairer way to ensure the costs fall on those with the broadest shoulders.  “The public wants to see action to reduce energy bills, which now ranks as the most worrying household expense amongst the population,” the letter, coordinated by charity the MCS Foundation, said.  OPTIONS  A dizzying array of levies are charged on bills to pay for renewable energy projects, energy-efficiency schemes and the costs of maintaining a stable electricity system. Collectively, they make up around 18 percent of the average electricity bill.  It isn’t yet clear which might be moved into taxation, but the first government figure above said the so-called Renewables Obligation — a charge that provides an income for older clean energy projects, some built 20 years ago — is the leading candidate to be shifted onto taxation.  The think tank Nesta, which has calculated the value of the reform, says it could potentially cut electricity bills by £86. The New Economics Foundation think tank puts the figure at around £95.  The government is also looking at the Energy Company Obligation, according to reports, which is currently levied on electricity and gas bills. That could instead be paid for using spending already allocated to the £13.2 billion Warm Homes Plan.  The Warm Homes Plan is expected to pay for energy-efficiency measures, solar panels and electric heating for poorer households — but full details have not yet been finalized.  Cornwall Insight, a consultancy which forecasts future trends in the energy market, said Tuesday that cutting VAT on energy bills from 5 percent to zero at the budget could bring down annual bills by a further £80.  NET ZERO CONSENT  Ministers hope taking direct action on bills will shore up public confidence in the government’s wider energy and climate agenda, which includes a stretching target to almost fully decarbonize electricity by 2030 and hit net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  The goal in the long run is to reduce U.K. dependence on gas, the volatile price of which has done major damage to household finances in recent years.  But the problem for the government is that actions required to achieve that strategy are — in the short term at least — pushing up bills. The costs of investing in new clean power sources like offshore wind farms, along with the electricity lines and pylons required to clean up the energy system, are all adding to costs.  The independent National Energy System Operator expects charges on energy bills to pay for upgrading the power grid to hit £93.48 next year, a jump of £40. Further increases are anticipated as vast pylon-building projects gather steam.  “This is a really delicate time for prices and their link to the legitimacy of the energy transition,” said Adam Berman, director of policy and advocacy at Energy UK, speaking in September. If ministers don’t look at ways to lower bills now, he argued, “they will be lining themselves up for a very challenging start to next year.”  Opposition parties have seized on this weakness in the government’s energy strategy. The Conservatives are calling for a Cheap Power Plan (rather than a clean one). Nigel Farage’s Reform UK said it would tear up expensive government contracts with offshore wind projects and abandon net zero altogether.  “Bills are the number one public concern,” said Sam Alvis, director of energy at the IPPR. “Regardless of whether it’s to underpin support for the clean power mission, any government needs to show it’s heard that message from the public that they want action on cost. Without that sense of public buy-in now, there’s no hope for any longer term economic or energy reforms.”  A Treasury spokesperson confirmed action on the cost of living was a priority for Reeves but said: “We do not comment on budget speculation.” 

BELÉM, Brazil — Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) will arrive Friday at the COP30 climate summit — making him the sole U.S. federal representative at United Nations talks that the Trump administration is skipping. Whitehouse’s office said he will meet in the Amazonian port city of Belém, Brazil, with elected officials along with business and global climate leaders. It said his goal is to show that the U.S. public still broadly supports addressing climate change despite Trump abstaining from the negotiations. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered a similar message earlier this week during his own swing through Belém. The White House has defended the U.S. absence from the talks, maintaining that the annual global climate gatherings work in the interests of rival countries like China. “President Trump will not allow the best interest of the American people to be jeopardized by the Green Energy Scam,” spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in an email last week. One GOP lawmaker, Sen. John Curtis of Utah, had planned to attend the summit but canceled because of the federal government shutdown. Whitehouse said he plans to harp on Trump and GOP policies that he cast as unpopular and responsible for boosting energy costs. “Amidst sinking approvals and a shellacking in the most recent elections, it’s no surprise the Trump administration is unwilling to defend the fossil fuel industry’s unpopular and corrupt climate denial lies on the global stage.” Whitehouse will participate in events Friday on offshore wind, shipping and non-carbon-dioxide greenhouse gas emissions before delivering a keynote speech at a roundtable with elected officials from other nations hosted by the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. On Saturday, he will weigh in on methane rules, net-zero policies and the effect climate change has on oceans.

BRUSSELS — Lawmakers in the European Parliament on Thursday agreed to exempt more companies from green reporting rules after the center-right, right-wing and far-right groups allied to pass the EU’s first omnibus simplification package. The outcome illustrates the EPP’s willingness to abandon its traditional centrist allies and press ahead with the support of far-right groups to pass its deregulation agenda, setting a precedent for future lawmaking in Parliament for the rest of the mandate. The far-right Patriots and Europe of Sovereign Nations groups and some liberals voted in favor of the center-right European People’s Party’s proposed changes to the European Commission’s first omnibus simplification bill, which were also proposed by right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists. The changes would raise the threshold of corporate sustainability disclosure and due diligence rules so that even fewer companies will have to report on the environmental footprint. 382 MEPs voted in favor, 249 against and 13 abstained. The Parliament also voted to scrap mandatory climate transition plans for companies under EU due diligence rules, to force them to align their business models with the greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives of the Paris Agreement. It comes after months of intense negotiations in which the EPP, the center-left Socialists and Democrats and the centrist Renew group failed to reach a deal among themselves on how far to roll back the reporting rules. The sustainability omnibus bills reviews EU laws on environmental disclosure and supply chain transparency rules to reduce administrative burden for companies in a bid to boost their competitiveness. The Parliament will now enter in negotiations with the Council of the EU and the Commission to finalize a common position on the file.

President Donald Trump is no longer content to stand aloof from the global alliance trying to combat climate change. His new goal is to demolish it — and replace it with a new coalition reliant on U.S. fossil fuels. Trump’s increasingly assertive energy diplomacy is one of the biggest challenges awaiting the world leaders, diplomats and business luminaries gathering for a United Nations summit in Brazil to try to advance the fight against global warming. The U.S. president will not be there — unlike the leaders of countries including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, who will speak before delegates from nearly 200 nations on Thursday and Friday. But his efforts to undermine the Paris climate agreement already loom over the talks, as does his initial success in drawing support from other countries. “It’s not enough to just withdraw from” the 2015 pact and the broader U.N. climate framework that governs the annual talks, said Richard Goldberg, who worked as a top staffer on Trump’s White House National Energy Dominance Council and is now senior adviser to the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “You have to degrade it. You have to deter it. You have to potentially destroy it.” Trump’s approach includes striking deals demanding that Japan, Europe and other trading partners buy more U.S. natural gas and oil, using diplomatic strong-arming to deter foreign leaders from cutting fossil fuel pollution, and making the United States inhospitable to clean energy investment. Unlike during his first term, when Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement but sent delegates to the annual U.N. climate talks anyway, he now wants to render them ineffective and starved of purpose by drawing as many other countries as possible away from their own clean energy goals, according to Cabinet officials’ public remarks and interviews with 20 administration allies and alumni, foreign diplomats and veterans of the annual climate negotiations. Those efforts are at odds with the goals of the climate summits, which included a Biden administration-backed pledge two years ago for the world to transition away from fossil fuels. Slowing or reversing that shift could send global temperatures soaring above the goals set in Paris a decade ago, threatening a spike in the extreme weather that is already pummeling countries and economies. The White House says Trump’s campaign to unleash American oil, gas and coal is for the United States’ benefit — and the world’s. “The Green New Scam would have killed America if President Trump had not been elected to implement his commonsense energy agenda — which is focused on utilizing the liquid gold under our feet to strengthen our grid stability and drive down costs for American families and businesses,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement. “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.” ‘WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PARIS AGREEMENT DIE’ The Trump administration is declining to send any high-level representatives to the COP30 climate talks, which will formally begin Monday in Belém, Brazil, according to a White House official who declined to comment on the record about whether any U.S. government officials would participate. Trump’s view that the annual negotiations are antithetical to his energy and economic agenda is also spreading among other Republican officials. Many GOP leaders, including 17 state attorneys general, argued last month that attending the summit would only legitimize the proceedings and its expected calls for ditching fossil fuels more swiftly. Climate diplomats from other countries say they’ve gotten the message about where the U.S. stands now — and are prepared to act without Washington. “We have a large country, a president, and a vice president who would like to see the Paris Agreement die,” Laurence Tubiana, the former French government official credited as a key architect of the 2015 climate pact, said of the United States. “The U.S. will not play a major role” at the summit, said Jochen Flasbarth, undersecretary in the German Ministry of Environmental Affairs. “The world is collectively outraged, and so we will focus — as will everyone else — on engaging in talks with those who are driving the process forward.” Trump and his allies have described the stakes in terms of a zero-sum contest between the United States and its main economic rival, China: Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they say, are a complete win for China, which sells the bulk of the world’s solar, wind, battery and electric vehicle technology. That’s a contrast from the approach of former President Joe Biden, who pushed a massive U.S. investment in green technologies as the only way for America to outcompete China in developing the energy sources of the future. In the Trump worldview, stalling that energy transition benefits the United States, the globe’s top producer of oil and natural gas, along with many of the technologies and services to produce, transport and burn the stuff. “If [other countries] don’t rely on this technology, then that’s less power to China,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who served in the U.S. Transportation Department during Trump’s first term and is now director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. TRUMP FINDS ALLIES THIS TIME Two big developments have shaped the president’s new thinking on how to counteract the international fight against climate change, said George David Banks, who was Trump’s international climate adviser during the first administration. The first was the Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed and Biden signed in 2022, which promised hundreds of billions of dollars to U.S. clean energy projects. Banks said the legislation, enacted entirely on partisan lines, made renewable energy a political target in the minds of Trump and his fossil-fuel backers. The second is Trump’s aggressive use of U.S. trading power during his second term to wring concessions from foreign governments, Banks said. Trump has required his agencies to identify obstacles for U.S. exports, and the United Nations’ climate apparatus may be deemed a barrier for sales of oil, gas and coal. Trump’s strategy is resonating with some fossil fuel-supporting nations, potentially testing the climate change comity at COP30. Those include emerging economies in Africa and Latin America, petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, and European nations feeling a cost-of-living strain that is feeding a resurgent right wing. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright drew applause in March at a Washington gathering called the Powering Africa Summit, where he called it “nonsense” for financiers and Western nations to vilify coal-fired power. He also asserted that U.S. natural gas exports could supply African and Asian nations with more of their electricity. Wright cast the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by 2050 — the target dozens of nations have embraced — as “sinister,” contending it consigns developing nations to poverty and lower living standards. The U.S. about-face was welcome, Sierra Leone mining and minerals minister Julius Daniel Mattai said during the conference. Western nations had kneecapped financing for offshore oil investments and worked to undercut public backing for fossil fuel projects, Mattai said, criticizing Biden’s administration for only being interested in renewable energy. But now Trump has created room for nations to use their own resources, Mattai said. “With the new administration having such a massive appetite for all sorts of energy mixes, including oil and gas, we do believe there’s an opportunity to explore our offshore oil investments,” he said in an interview. TURNING UP THE HEAT ON TRADING PARTNERS Still, Banks acknowledged that Trump probably can’t halt the spread of clean energy. Fossil fuels may continue to supply energy in emerging economies for some time, he said, but the private sector remains committed to clean energy to meet the U.N.’s goals of curbing climate change. That doesn’t mean Trump won’t try. The administration’s intent to pressure foreign leaders into a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance was on full display last month at a London meeting of the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization where U.S. Cabinet secretaries and diplomats succeeded in thwarting a proposed carbon emissions tax on global shipping. That coup followed a similar push against Beijing a month earlier, when Mexico — the world’s biggest buyer of Chinese cars — slapped a 50 percent tariff on automotive imports from China after pressure from the Trump administration. China accused the U.S. of “coercion.” Trump’s attempt to flood global markets with ever growing amounts of U.S. fossil fuels is even more ambitious, though so far incomplete. The EU and Japan — under threat of tariffs — have promised to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on U.S. energy products. But so far, new and binding contracts have not appeared. Trump has also tried to push China, Japan and South Korea to invest in a $44 billion liquefied natural gas project in Alaska, so far to no avail. In the face of potential tariffs and other U.S. pressure, European ministers and diplomats are selling the message that victory at COP30 might simply come in the form of presenting a united front in favor of climate action. That could mean joining with other major economies such as China and India, and forming common cause with smaller, more vulnerable countries, to show that Trump is isolated. “I’m sure the EU and China will find themselves on opposite sides of many debates,” said the EU’s lead climate negotiator, Jacob Werksman. “But we have ways of working with them. … We are both betting heavily on the green transition.” Avoiding a faceplant may actually be easier if the Trump administration does decide to turn up in Brazil, said Li Shuo, the director of China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute in Washington. “If the U.S. is there and active, I’d expect the rest of the world, including the EU and China, to rest aside their rhetorical games in front of a larger challenge,” Li wrote via text. And for countries attending COP, there is still some hope of a long-term win. Solar, wind, geothermal and other clean energy investments are continuing apace, even if Trump and the undercurrents that led to his reelection have hindered them, said Nigel Purvis, CEO of climate consulting firm Climate Advisers and a former State Department climate official. Trump’s attempts to kill the shipping fee, EU methane pollution rules and Europe’s corporate sustainability framework are one thing, Purvis said. But when it comes to avoiding Trump’s retribution, there is “safety in numbers” for the rest of the world that remains in the Paris Agreement, he added. And even if the progress is slower than originally hoped, those nations have committed to shifting their energy systems off fossil fuels. “We’re having slower climate action than otherwise would be the case. But we’re really talking about whether Trump is going to be able to blow up the regime,” Purvis said. “And I think the answer is ‘No.’” Nicolas Camut in Paris, Zia Weise in Brussels and Josh Groeneveld in Berlin contributed to this report.

It’s been a decade since the U.S. and Europe pushed the world to embrace a historic agreement to stop the planet’s runaway warming. The deal among nearly 200 nations offered a potential “turning point for the world,” then-U.S. President Barack Obama said. Eventually, almost every country on Earth signed the 2015 Paris Agreement, a pact whose success would rest on peer pressure, rising ambition and the economics of a clean energy revolution. But 10 years later, the actions needed to fulfill those hopes are falling short. The United States has quit the deal — twice. President Donald Trump is throttling green energy projects at home and finding allies to help him undermine climate initiatives abroad, while inking trade deals that commit countries to buying more U.S. fossil fuels. Europe remains on track to meet its climate commitments, but its resolve is wavering, as price-weary voters and the rise of far-right parties raise doubts about how quickly the bloc can deliver its pledge to turn away from fossil fuels. Paris has helped ingrain climate change awareness in popular culture and policy, led countries and companies to pledge to cut their carbon pollution to zero and helped steer a wave of investments into clean energy. Scientists say it appears to have lessened the odds of the most catastrophic levels of warming. On the downside, oil and gas production hasn’t yet peaked, and climate pollution and temperatures are still rising — with the latter just tenths of a degree from the tipping point agreed in Paris. But the costs of green energy have fallen so much that, in most parts of the world, it’s the cheapest form of power and is being installed at rates unthinkable 10 years ago. World leaders and diplomats who are in Brazil starting this week for the United Nations’ annual climate talks will face a test to stand up for Paris in the face of Trump’s opposition while highlighting that its goals are both necessary and beneficial. The summit in the Amazonian port city of Belém was supposed to be the place where rich and poor countries would celebrate their progress and commit themselves to ever-sharper cuts in greenhouse gas pollution. Instead, U.S. contempt for global climate efforts and a muddled message from Europe are adding headwinds to a moment that is far more turbulent than the one in which the Paris Agreement was adopted. Some climate veterans are still optimists — to a point. “I think that the basic architecture is resistant to Trump’s destruction,” said John Podesta, chair of the board of the liberal Center for American Progress, who coordinated climate policy under Obama and former President Joe Biden. But that resistance could wilt if the U.S. stays outside the agreement, depriving the climate movement of American leadership and support, he said. “If all that’s gone, and it’s gone for a long time, I don’t know whether the structure holds together,” Podesta added. Other climate diplomats say the cooperative spirit of 2015 would be hard to recreate now, which is why acting on Paris is so essential. “If we had to renegotiate Paris today, we’d never get the agreement that we had 10 years ago,” said Rachel Kyte, the United Kingdom’s special climate representative. “But we can also look to these extraordinary data points, which show that the direction of travel is very clear,” she said, referring to growth of clean energy. “And most people who protect where their money is going to be are interested in that direction of travel.” THE PARIS PARADOX One thing that hasn’t faded is the business case for clean energy. If anything, the economic drivers behind the investments that Paris helped unleash have surpassed even what the Paris deal’s authors anticipated. But the political will to keep countries driving forward has stalled in some places as the United States — the world’s largest economy, sole military superpower and historically biggest climate polluter — attacks its very foundation. Trump’s attempts to undermine the agreement, summed up by the 2017 White House slogan “Pittsburgh, not Paris,” has affected European ambitions as well, French climate diplomat Laurence Tubiana told reporters late last month. “I have never seen such aggressivity against national climate policy all over because of the U.S.,” said Tubiana, a key architect of the Paris Agreement. “So we are really confronted with an ideological battle, a cultural battle, where climate is in that package the U.S. government wants to defeat.” The White House said Trump is focused on developing U.S. oil and engaging with world leaders on energy issues, rather than what it dubs the “green new scam.” The U.S. will not send high-level representatives to COP30. “The Green New Scam would have killed America if President Trump had not been elected to implement his commonsense energy agenda,” said Taylor Rogers, a spokesperson. “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.” Trump is not the only challenge facing Paris, of course. Even under Obama, the U.S. insisted that the Paris climate pollution targets had to be nonbinding, avoiding the need for a Senate ratification vote that would most likely fail. But unlike previous climate pacts that the U.S. had declined to join, all countries — including, most notably, China — would have to submit a pollution-cutting plan. The accord left it up to the governments themselves to carry out their own pledges and to push laggards to do better. An unusual confluence of political winds helped drive the bargaining. Obama, who was staking part of his legacy on getting a global climate agreement, had spent the year leading up to Paris negotiating a separate deal with China in which both countries committed to cutting their world-leading pollution. France, the host of the Paris talks, was also determined to strike a worldwide pact. In the year that followed, more than 160 countries submitted their initial plans to tackle climate change domestically and began working to finish the rules that would undergird the agreement. “The Paris Agreement isn’t a machine that churns out ambition. It basically reflects back to us the level of ambition that we have agreed to … and suggests what else is needed to get back on track,” said Kaveh Guilanpour, vice president for international strategies at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and a negotiator for the United Kingdom during the Paris talks. “Whether countries do that or not, it’s essentially then a matter for them.” Catherine McKenna, Canada’s former environment minister and a lead negotiator of the Paris Agreement’s carbon crediting mechanism, called the deal an “incredible feat” — but not a self-executing one. “The problem is now it’s really up to countries as well as cities, regions, companies and financial institutions to act,” she said. “It’s not a treaty thing anymore — it’s now, ‘Do the work.’” WHEN GREEN TURNS GRAY Signs of discord are not hard to find around the globe. China is tightening its grip on clean energy manufacturing and exports, ensuring more countries have access to low-cost renewables, but creating tensions in places that also want to benefit from jobs and revenue from making those goods and fear depending too much on one country. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, a former United Nations climate envoy, eliminated his country’s consumer carbon tax and is planning to tap more natural gas to toughen economic defenses against the United States. The European Union spent the past five years developing a vast web of green regulations and sectoral measures, and the bloc estimates that it’s roughly on track to meet those goals. But many of the EU’s 27 governments — under pressure from the rising far right, high energy prices, the decline of traditional industry and Russia’s war against Ukraine — are now demanding that the EU reevaluate many of those policies. Still, views within the bloc diverge sharply, with some pushing for small tweaks and others for rolling back large swaths of legislation. “Europe must remain a continent of consistency,” French President Emmanuel Macron said after a meeting of EU leaders in October. “It must step up on competitiveness, but it must not give up on its [climate] goals.” Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk, in contrast, said after the same meeting that he felt vindicated about his country’s long-standing opposition to the EU’s green agenda: “In most European capitals, people today think differently about these exaggerated European climate ambitions.” Worldwide, most countries have not submitted their latest carbon-cutting plans to the United Nations. While the plans that governments have announced mostly expand on their previous ones, they still make only modest reductions against what is needed to limit Earth’s warming since the preindustrial era to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Exceeding that threshold, scientists say, would lead to more lives lost and physical and economic damage that would be ever harder to recover from with each tenth of a degree of additional warming. The U.N.’s latest report showing the gap between countries’ new pledges and the Paris targets found that the world is on track for between 2.3 and 2.5 degrees of warming, a marginal difference from plans submitted in 2020 that is largely canceled out when the U.S. pledge is omitted. Policies in place now are pointing toward 2.8 degrees of warming. “We need unprecedented cuts to greenhouse gas emissions now in an ever-compressing timeframe and amid a challenging geopolitical context,” said Inger Andersen, executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme. But doing so also makes sense, she added. “This where the market is showing that these kind of investments in smart, clean and green is actually driving jobs and opportunities. This is where the future lies.” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a video message Tuesday that overshooting the 1.5-degrees target of Paris was now inevitable in the coming years imploring leaders to rapidly roll out renewables and stop expanding oil, gas and coal to ensure that overshoot was short-lived. “We’re in a huge mess,” said Bill Hare, a longtime climate scientist who founded the policy institute Climate Analytics. Greenhouse gas pollution hasn’t fallen, and action has flat lined even as climate-related disasters have increased. “I think what’s upcoming is a major test for the Paris Agreement, probably the major test. Can this agreement move forward under the weight of all of these challenges?” Hare asked. “If it can’t do that, governments are going to be asking about the benefits of it, frankly.” That doesn’t mean all is lost. In 2015, the world was headed for around 4 degrees Celsius of warming, an amount that researchers say would have been devastating for much of the planet. Today, that projection is roughly a degree Celsius lower. “I think a lot of us in Paris were very dubious at the time that we would ever limit warming to 1.5,” said Elliot Diringer, a former climate official who led the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions’ international program during the Paris talks. “The question is whether we are better off by virtue of the Paris Agreement,” he said. “I think the answer is yes. Are we where we need to be? Absolutely not.” GREEN TECHNOLOGY DEFYING EXPECTATIONS In addition, the adoption of clean energy technology has moved even faster than projected — sparking what one climate veteran has called a shift in global climate politics. “We are no longer in a world in which only climate politics has a leading role and a substantial role, but increasingly, climate economics,” said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2015. “Yes, politics is important; no longer as important as it was 10 years ago.” Annual solar deployment globally is 15 times greater than the International Energy Agency predicted in 2015, according to a recent analysis from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a U.K. nonprofit. Renewables now account for more than 90 percent of new power capacity added globally every year, BloombergNEF reported. China is deploying record amounts of renewables and lowering costs for countries such as Brazil and Pakistan, which has seen solar installations skyrocket. Even in the United States, where Trump repealed many of Biden’s tax breaks and other incentives, BloombergNEF predicts that power companies will continue to deploy green sources, in large part because they’re often the fastest source of new electricity. Costs for wind and batteries and falling, too. Electric vehicle sales are soaring in many countries, thanks in large part to the huge number of inexpensive vehicles being pumped out by China’s BYD, the world’s largest EV-maker. Worldwide clean energy investments are now twice as much as fossil fuels spending, according to the International Energy Agency. “Today, you can actually talk about deploying clean energy technologies just because of their cost competitiveness and ability to lower energy system costs,” said Robbie Orvis, senior director of modeling and analysis at the research institution Energy Innovation. “You don’t actually even have to say ‘climate’ for a lot of them, and that just wasn’t true 10 years ago.” The economic trends of the past decade have been striking, said Todd Stern, the U.S. climate envoy who negotiated the Paris Agreement. “Paris is something that was seen all over the world, seen by other countries, seen in boardrooms, as the first time in more than 20 years when you finally got heads of government saying, ‘Yes, let’s do this,’” he said. “And that’s not the only reason why there was tremendous technological development, but it sure didn’t hurt.” Still, limits exist to how far businesses can take the clean energy transition on their own. “You need government intervention of some kind, whether that’s a stick or a carrot, to push the economy towards a low-carbon trajectory,” said Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of policy at the International Chamber of Commerce. “If governments press the brakes on climate action or seriously start to soft pedal, then it does have a limiting effect.” Brazil, the host of COP30, says it wants to demonstrate that multilateralism still works and is relevant to peoples’ lives and capable of addressing the climate impacts communities around the world are facing. But the goal of this year’s talks might be even more straightforward, said Guilanpour, the former negotiator. “If we come out of COP30 demonstrating that the Paris Agreement is alive and functioning,” he said, “I think in the current context, that is pretty newsworthy of itself.” Nicolas Camut in Paris, Zi-Ann Lum in Ottawa, Karl Mathiesen in London and Zia Weise in Brussels contributed to this report.

New national plans designed to more aggressively combat climate change would hardly dent already dangerously high global temperature projections, according to a United Nations report published Tuesday. The findings underscore the task at hand for nations as they prepare for COP30 climate negotiations that begin Nov. 10 in Brazil. The U.N. report showed nations are on a path that would bake in long-term changes to the planet such as more deadly heatwaves, runaway sea level rise and likelier extreme events like wildfires and droughts. Temperatures would rise between 2.3 and 2.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial era levels by 2100 through policies governments included in their formal climate strategies last week, the annual U.N. emissions gap analysis found. That trajectory would far exceed the 2015 Paris climate agreement goals of keeping increases “well below” 2 C and the more ambitious 1.5 C mark. “The bottom line is that nations have had three attempts to hit the mark with their Paris Agreement pledges, and each time they have landed off target,” the report said. “We still need unprecedented cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, in an ever-compressing timeframe, amid a challenging geopolitical context.” While the pathway amounts to progress since the Paris climate agreement, when temperatures were headed for 4 C of warming, it still is far from enough, the report said. The U.N. reached the grim conclusion that multi-decadal temperature increase will surpass 1.5 C for the first time within the next decade. Doing so would cross a critical political threshold. Nations have largely centered their strategies on avoiding that mark, citing dire predictions from a 2018 U.N. special report on climate science that warned of the enhanced likelihood of provoking irreversible climate “tipping points.” “The Paris Agreement does not set a target date or expiration for its temperature goal. It is widely understood as a legal, moral and political obligation,” the report said, noting that, “[e]very fraction of a degree of global warming matters.” Countries are actually falling further behind their original pledges: Nearly all the improvements — accounting for 0.1 C of warming — from the national plans submitted in 2020, when nations were on path for 2.6 to 2.8 C, are due to methodological changes. The United States’ second withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement under President Donald Trump would erase another 0.1 C of progress, the U.N. said. Trump will exacerbate the issue as he sidelines the world’s largest economy and second-highest emitter. The U.N. found recent policy reversals would raise U.S. emissions by 1 gigaton through 2030, a significant increase compared to former President Joe Biden’s goal to cut U.S. emissions to roughly 3 gigatons that year. Pollution trends are going in the wrong direction globally, the report states. Global greenhouse gases rose 2.3 percent from 2023 levels, far exceeding the 1.6 percent increase between 2022 and 2023 and four times faster than the average annual growth rate in the 2010s. Land-use change and deforestation drove emissions higher in 2024, combined with high fossil fuel consumption. The U.N. said the goal is now to limit “overshoot” of 1.5 C — which acknowledges the reality that nations are heading north of the goal — and eventually reducing global temperatures. The report assessed a scenario with 66 percent likelihood of keeping that overshoot within 0.3 C and bringing temperatures back under 1.5 C by 2100. But most nations are not even close to implementing all the policies for achieving their 2030 goals, with the world currently on pace for 2.8 C of warming. And just 60 parties to the Paris Agreement — not even one-third of the total — filed their nationally determined contributions, the national plans due every five years, by the Sept. 30 deadline. That already was months after the original February deadline. G20 nations, which outside of African Union nations account for 77 percent of global greenhouse gases, must lead the way, the U.N. said. So far, just seven G20 members have finalized their latest NDCs while another three have announced informal targets. The G20 proposals are also lacking overall, as none strengthened their 2030 targets, the U.N. said. “Accelerated mitigation action provides benefits and opportunities,” the report said, adding, “The new NDCs and current geopolitical situation do not provide promising signs that this will happen, but that is what countries and the multilateral processes must resolve to affirm collective commitment and confidence in achieving the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.”