The Trump administration has opposed several international efforts to address climate change, including a proposed carbon tax on shipping emissions, a plastics production treaty, a UN resolution from Vanuatu, and IEA energy forecasts. These actions involved withdrawing from negotiations, issuing threats, and pressuring diplomatic partners. While some efforts faced delays, global renewable investments reached $2.3 trillion last year.
The article details four instances where the U.S. under President Trump influenced global climate policy during his second term. First, in April, the administration withdrew from negotiations on a global carbon tax for the shipping industry, which accounts for about 3% of world emissions. It threatened tariffs, visa restrictions, port fees, and sanctions on supporters. In October, 57 countries delayed the framework. A State Department cable stated the U.S. is “strongly opposed” to a carbon fee and “will not tolerate” a related fund, recommending to end consideration of the net-zero framework. Alisa Kreynes of C40 said countries should vote based on UN commitments, not intimidation, as a patchwork of regulations would otherwise apply without the framework. nnSecond, ahead of last summer's UN negotiations in Geneva for a plastics treaty with mandatory production caps, the U.S. circulated a memo opposing such measures, stating they would increase costs of plastic products. Backed by over 100 countries initially, the talks ended without agreement as the U.S. and oil-producing nations refused to compromise. nnThird, last month, the State Department urged UN members to reject a Vanuatu-led resolution following an ICJ ruling on climate obligations. The resolution sought to limit warming to 1.5°C, phase out fossil fuels, and establish reparations. The U.S. called it a “disturbing resolution” and “charade,” asking Vanuatu to withdraw it. Lee-Anne Sackett, Vanuatu’s special envoy, noted ongoing negotiations with confidence in passage, though U.S. opposition quieted some supporters. Joie Chowdhury of the Center for International Environmental Law remarked that those most responsible for the crisis often resist accountability. nnFourth, Energy Secretary Chris Wright pressured the IEA to revive its “current policies scenario” assuming stalled climate action and to stop net-zero modeling, threatening U.S. withdrawal. The IEA complied partially by reviving the model but experts doubt it will cease net-zero projections, valuable to investors and petrostates. Maria Pastukhova of E3G noted it signals profitable shifts, while Andreas Sieber of 350.org warned of eroding IEA credibility. nnBroader context includes declining climate rhetoric amid shifting priorities, yet events like Middle East conflicts spur renewables for energy security. Global energy transition investment rose 8% to $2.3 trillion last year.
