Do UN climate talks have a point any more?

The image, captured a decade ago in Paris, now feels like a faded photograph from a bygone era. Dozens of world leaders, impeccably dressed in dark suits, stood shoulder to shoulder before a towering sign proclaiming "COP21 Paris." Front and center, a beaming David Cameron, then UK Prime Minister, shared the frame with the future King Charles III, while China’s President Xi Jinping stood nearby. Further to the right, then-US President Barack Obama was engaged in conversation, barely fitting into the shot – a testament to the sheer number of global figures assembled that day, so many that the photographer struggled to encompass them all. It was a powerful tableau of unified global intent, a moment when multilateral diplomacy appeared to be at its zenith, culminating in the landmark Paris Agreement.

What a stark contrast to the comparatively sparse "family photograph" taken this Thursday at the COP30 summit in Belém, Brazil. The gathering, held in a humid town on the edge of the Amazon rainforest, saw noticeable absences. President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, pillars of global power, were no-shows, along with the leaders of approximately 160 other nations. Most notably, the US President Donald Trump was absent, his administration having entirely exited the UN climate process and explicitly stating it would send no high-level officials this year.

This raises a profound question: why convene a two-week-long multinational summit if so many key global players are not present? The very foundation of these annual Conferences of the Parties (COPs) rests on collective action and high-level political will. Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN’s climate process, who famously steered the Paris Agreement to fruition, articulated her disillusionment during last year’s gathering, stating that the COP process was "not fit for purpose." Echoing this sentiment, Joss Garman, a seasoned climate activist now leading the new think tank Loom, declared, "The golden era for multilateral diplomacy is over." He contends that "Climate politics is now more than ever about who captures and controls the economic benefits of new energy industries." With global carbon dioxide emissions still stubbornly rising despite twenty-nine previous meetings dedicated to reducing them, the efficacy and ultimate purpose of continuing these large-scale COPs are under intense scrutiny.

Trump and the Climate ‘Con Job’

Donald Trump’s return to office has sent a chilling message through the global climate community. On his first day, he wielded his signature marker pen to symbolically withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, the very 2015 UN treaty designed to collectively keep global warming below 1.5°C. His rhetoric has been consistently dismissive, famously declaring to the UN General Assembly, "This ‘climate change’ – it’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world." He warned nations, "If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail."

His actions have matched his words. He has systematically rolled back environmental restrictions on oil, gas, and coal production, signed billions of dollars in tax breaks for fossil fuel companies, and opened vast federal lands for extraction. Furthermore, Trump and his team have actively urged governments worldwide to abandon their "pathetic" renewable energy programs, instead advocating for the purchase of US oil and gas, sometimes even hinting at punitive tariffs for non-compliance. Countries like Japan, South Korea, and various European nations have already committed to buying tens of billions of US hydrocarbons. The objective is unmistakable: Trump aims to solidify the US as the "number one energy superpower in the world" through fossil fuel dominance.

Concurrently, he has set about dismantling his predecessor Joe Biden’s clean energy agenda. Subsidies and tax breaks for wind and solar projects have been severely slashed, permits withdrawn, and numerous clean energy initiatives cancelled. Research funding for renewable technologies has also faced significant cuts. When asked to explain this policy, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the administration’s stance, arguing, "Wind power in the United States has been subsidised for 33 years – isn’t that enough? You’ve got to be able to walk on your own after 25 to 30 years of subsidies." However, John Podesta, a senior climate adviser to both Obama and Biden, offered a starkly different perspective: "The United States is taking a wrecking ball to clean energy. They’re trying to take us back not to the 20th Century, but the 19th."

The impact of this policy shift is already being felt internationally. Just last month, a landmark deal that would have significantly cut global shipping emissions was abandoned, largely due to the US, in concert with Saudi Arabia, successfully ending the talks. This move highlights a broader concern among supporters of the COP process: what happens if the US’s aggressive fossil-fuels-first path encourages other countries to dial down their own climate commitments? Anna Aberg, a Research Fellow in Chatham House’s Environment and Society Centre, described COP as "taking place in a really difficult political context" given Trump’s position. She emphasized, "I think it’s more important than ever that this COP sends some kind of signal to the world that there are still governments and businesses and institutions that are acting on climate change."

It’s Too Late to Win at Table Tennis: China’s Green Ascent

Trump’s fossil-fuel-centric strategy places the US on an inevitable collision course with China, which has for decades been meticulously working to dominate the world’s energy supplies – but through clean technology. In 2023, clean technologies were the primary engine of China’s economic growth, accounting for approximately 40% according to the climate website Carbon Brief. Even after a slight slowdown last year, renewables now make up more than 10% of China’s entire economy and were responsible for a quarter of all new economic growth.

Like Trump’s America, China is engaging internationally far beyond mere participation in COP; it is actively exporting its entire clean energy model globally. This split has fundamentally transformed the climate debate, turning it into a fierce geopolitical and economic competition between the world’s two superpowers for control over what will undoubtedly be the most essential industries on Earth.

This dynamic leaves nations like the UK and Europe, as well as major emerging powers such as India, Indonesia, Turkey, and Brazil, caught in a precarious middle ground. A government source from a major developed country, speaking at this year’s conference, admitted the palpable fear: "Of all the things they’re most terrified of, the biggest is being seen to criticise Trump."

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, recently issued a stark warning that Europe must not repeat "the mistakes of the past" by losing another strategic industry to China. She specifically cited the loss of Europe’s solar manufacturing base to cheaper Chinese rivals as "a cautionary tale we must not forget." The European Commission projects that the global market for renewables and other clean energy sources will balloon from €600 billion (£528 billion) to an astounding €2 trillion (£1.74 trillion) within a decade, and Europe aims to capture at least 15% of that.

However, this ambition may prove to be too little, too late. Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Policy Institute, flatly states, "China is already the world’s clean-tech superpower." He argues that China’s dominance in solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles (EVs), and advanced battery technologies is now "virtually unassailable." He vividly likens the situation to trying to beat the Chinese national team at table tennis: "If you want to surpass China, you had to get your act together 25 years ago. If you want to do it now, you have no hope."

China produces over 80% of the world’s solar panels, a similar share of advanced batteries, 70% of EVs, and more than 60% of wind turbines, all offered at extraordinarily competitive prices. The EU’s recent decision to raise tariffs on Chinese EVs perfectly illustrates the scale of this dilemma. Open the market, and Europe’s domestic car industry faces collapse; close it, and ambitious green targets may become unattainable. While restricting Chinese access to these markets might slow emissions reductions, Joss Garman argues, "If we ignore questions about economic security, jobs, national security, that risks undermining public and political support for the entire climate effort."

COP: New Purpose or Pointless?

In light of these profound shifts in global politics and economic priorities, Anna Aberg anticipates that COP will evolve into an annual forum primarily focused on "holding to account" countries and other organizations. She believes this remains an "important role" for the summit, even if its original purpose of forging grand, unified agreements is diminished.

The gathering in Brazil takes place against a backdrop of increasing urgency. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has acknowledged that the 1.5°C target set in Paris will be breached, a failure he has termed "deadly negligence" on the part of the world community. Last year was the hottest ever recorded, and 60 leading climate scientists warned in June that the Earth could breach the 1.5°C threshold in as little as three years at current emission levels. These alarming realities fuel the growing chorus of voices questioning the necessity of an annual, unwieldy global gathering.

"I think we need one big COP every five years. And between that, I’m not sure what COP is for," argues Michael Liebreich, founder of energy consultancy Bloomberg New Energy Finance and host of the "Cleaning Up" green energy podcast. He believes that the current annual cycle is unsustainable: "You can’t just expect politicians to go and make more and more commitments. You need time for industries to develop and for things to happen. You need the real economy to catch up." Liebreich suggests that it would be far more productive for discussions to occur in smaller, more focused meetings aimed at removing specific barriers to clean energy implementation. He also contends that crucial issues like funding and project implementation should be discussed in more relevant venues, such as Wall Street, "where people can actually fund stuff," rather than in a remote location on the edge of the Brazilian rainforest.

Despite these criticisms, many believe that continued collective support for the COP process remains crucial. Michael Jacobs, who advised former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown on climate policy and is now a politics professor at Sheffield University, emphasizes its enduring significance. "It’s a big political message, because Donald Trump is trying to undermine the collective process, but it’s also a message to businesses that they should continue to invest in decarbonisation because governments will continue to enact climate policies."

The UK’s Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, steadfastly defends these meetings, asserting that they have delivered real progress by compelling countries to engage with climate change and enact policies that have catalyzed the renewable revolution. He describes the process as "dry, complicated, anguished, it’s tiring," but ultimately, "it’s absolutely necessary."

While many now accept there is a strong argument for scaling down the frequency or scope of these international gatherings, the underlying choice for many nations in attendance at COP30 remains stark. It comes down to the extent to which they align with a China-led clean energy revolution – or double down on a fossil fuels-first agenda championed by the US. This new geopolitical landscape suggests that the process of decarbonization will increasingly be less about the grand, multi-country commitments forged in COPs past, and far more about big-money deals and strategic alliances between individual nations. This shift will undoubtedly shape how COPs may well play out in the future, if they continue at all in their current form.