Trump administration confirmed the US will not send senior representatives to upcoming UN climate talks in Brazil, underscoring the administration's hostility to action to combat the climate crisis.
The US has always sent delegations of varying sizes to UN climate summits over the past three decades, even during the George W. Bush administration and Donald Trump's first term, when there was little desire to address the global heating crisis.
But the negotiations in Belém next month will be devoid of official American presence to a degree never seen before. Trump has called the climate crisis a “hoax” and a “scam” and said the US will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, which calls on countries to limit dangerous global temperature rises.
““The 'new green scam' would have killed America if President Trump had not been elected to implement his common-sense energy agenda, which is focused on harnessing the liquid gold beneath our feet to strengthen the stability of our energy grid and lower costs for American families and businesses,” said Taylor Rogers, White House press secretary, in a statement to the Guardian.
The “fraud” reference refers to Joe Biden's climate policies.
““President Trump will not jeopardize our country's economic and national security by pursuing vague climate goals that are killing other countries,” she added.
Earlier this year, the US State Department closed the office that typically deals with climate issues. The position of climate envoy, which was in place under Biden, was also eliminated.
Having rejected multilateral negotiations with other countries, the White House has opted for an approach in which Trump strikes individual countries directly.
In recent months, the US president has secured agreements with the European Union to buy $750 billion of American oil and gas, as well as with countries such as Japan and South Korea to develop rare earth materials, nuclear power and fossil fuel projects.
Trump also called on other countries to move away from renewable energy sources. “If you don't get rid of this green scam, your country will fail,” President told leaders during a speech at the UN last month. “If you want to be great again, you need strong boundaries and traditional sources of energy.”
The absence of a US presence at the Belem talks is another complication for a summit that already appears turbulent.
Countries must present updated plans at the meeting to cut planet-warming emissions. but the vast majority have not yet done sowhile many delegates struggle to find accommodation to attend talks in the city that serves as a gateway to the Amazon River.
“The president has made it clear that he wants to get out of the Paris agreement, so it doesn't surprise me that they're not sending anyone because they're not involved,” said Todd Stern, a former top U.S. climate negotiator during Barack Obama's presidency.
“I don't think they'll add anything useful. This is a much more aggressive administration across the board now. I think the vast majority of countries won't pay attention to this, they know climate change is real, you just have to look out the window to see it's getting worse.”
The event will be attended by US governors, members of Congress, mayors and activists. KS30 summit, with the message that subnational American jurisdictions are still taking action to combat climate change.
But they did not receive any support from the US government for this. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, said Thursday that he was told “they weren't even going to send an embassy to support the U.S. delegation, which is a pretty standard courtesy for those of us who did go.”
“So at the moment I don't think there are any signs [the administration attending]but who knows? This is a very mobile administration. They might decide at the last minute to send a plane full of climate deniers and fossil fuel specialists to Belem.”
One former senior State Department official, speaking anonymously, said it would be preferable for the U.S. not to attend the talks so other countries could negotiate a stronger climate deal.
“If the choice is no U.S. or the U.S. acting as a spoiler, disrupting and disrupting the situation, then I think most countries would prefer the U.S. not to be there,” the former official said.
