By Jeff YoungShareNewsweek is a Trust Project memberThe COP30 climate talks launched two weeks ago amid high expectations for progress in Belém, Brazil. After 10 years of the Paris Climate Agreement, new national commitments to cut greenhouse gases were due and momentum was building for an international plan to phase out the world’s use of fossil fuels.
Further, the COP30 setting at the mouth of the Amazon River stressed the importance of forests and nature conservation in the climate fight, and Brazil was set to unveil a new way to fund forest protections.
But early signs of progress at the talks seemed to bog down in the tropical heat. By the time negotiators took up the idea of a “road map” to phase out fossil fuels, a fire in the venue forced a temporary evacuation and offered fitting symbolism for a COP going down in flames.
On Saturday, the talks closed with mixed results at best: financing for forests grew but not to the hoped-for levels; national plans still came short of the Paris target; and the COP30 final document did not call for new action to end fossil fuels.
“My own judgment is that the outcomes were a combination of disappointing, problematic and potentially important,” Harvard economist and veteran COP observer Robert Stavins told Newsweek. Stavins directs both the Harvard Environmental Economics Program and the school’s Project on Climate Agreements and he has attended close to 20 of the annual United Nations climate gatherings.
Stavins said that with the Trump administration abandoning the Paris Agreement and ignoring COP30 (for the first time in COP history, the U.S. did not send an official delegation), the realistic expectations for a strong outcome were low.
However, he said, COP30 produced a “potentially important” development on global trade and climate, a relatively new topic in the COP process.
The European Union has tied trade to climate action with the adoption of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), a means of pricing the greenhouse gas emissions involved in the manufacturing of many products the E.U. imports. In effect, CBAM is a CO2 tariff on carbon-intensive products like aluminum, cement and steel.
In this interview, edited for length and clarity, Stavins said a dialogue on trade launched at COP30 could serve to overcome some objections to the CBAM and encourage other countries to take a similar approach to pricing carbon pollution.
Newsweek: Tell me about what you found “potentially important” coming out of COP30.
Robert Stavins: They established what is called a trade and climate dialogue. Obviously, the relationship between international trade and climate change is extremely important and one can view it in lots of ways. Some countries are very hostile towards the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in the European Union and feel that it's a way of keeping developing countries mired in poverty through what is essentially environmental protectionism.
The Europeans obviously view it as both necessary for establishing a level playing field but also as a way of inducing other countries to take on domestic carbon pricing mechanisms in order to escape the tariff when they export those specific bulk products: iron and steel and cement, aluminum, a few others, into the European Union.
What’s striking is that they agreed to start a 2-year work program on how international trade can support equitable climate action. Well, once they start a program, then they have to meet and talk about it, they have to put things on paper, so this one actually does have a bit of meat.
There was interest expressed from the Brazilian presidency going into the COP in the notion of something broader than the CBAM: A number of countries putting in place carbon pricing domestic mechanisms—whether it's a carbon tax or auctioned allowances under cap and trade—keeping the revenue and then putting in place essentially trade barriers like the CBAM on non-participating countries. In other words, expanding the CBAM into something like a carbon pricing club.
That reminds me that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the environment committee, was the sole federal U.S. representative there in Belém and this was one of his top talking points. He called the CBAM “a lifeboat” for climate safety, and I'm wondering if you agree with that assessment.
I think it is. I originally saw it as an understandable reaction, trying to make European industry happy, so that they wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage. But I was very skeptical of the possibility of it actually inducing other countries to put in place carbon pricing mechanisms. But I was wrong, because in fact other countries are in that process.
Turkey has been completely upfront about the fact that they're developing a carbon price mechanism for the explicit purpose of not having to pay the CBAM. And I can tell you that I think it's five other countries that are also developing plans—I can't comment on some because I've been working with them, so it's confidential. So, to me, that is a potentially very promising development, but I say potentially because, you know, there are a lot of caveats.
One of the caveats there might be what the Trump administration will do in response to this.
Obviously, tariffs have been essential to the first ten months of the Trump administration's policies. Leading up to COP30, the Trump administration tried with several other countries to get them to back down on their NDCs [national commitments to cut CO2 emissions]. And the way they did it was to say, you know and we'll look upon you favorably in terms of international trade if you do. That failed.
So rather than using trade barriers in a positive way, which I think is what the CBAM is, the Trump administration has been using them in regards to climate change in a negative way.
How big a deal was it that the U.S. wasn't there? Did that create a sort of leadership void, and did others seek to fill that? I'm thinking of China in particular.
The answer is yes. The overall effect is a change of mood. Leading up to the Paris Agreement, the U.S. and China were partners—we never would have gotten the Paris Agreement otherwise.
China now is happy to emerge into sole leadership. China now is emerging and in broader terms than just climate, it is in terms of all kinds of soft power as the U.S. pulls back with the cancelling of USAID and so much else.
What do you think of the future of the COP process itself? There are growing calls for reform to the process—do you see it changing, and do you think it remains relevant?
I don't see it going away because it has a huge constituency. Developing countries don't walk out on it because they don't want to jeopardize the process and see something like the G20 take over. So, for that reason, my opinion is that we will continue to have it for quite some time. It will become irrelevant only as an alternative parallel to it emerges and that could be what I described before but it might be something else, but I think it's going to be with us for a while.
One last thing I'll say is I would be more optimistic about COP31 in Turkey. Turkey is a very interesting place, they are real bridge between Europe and Asia, obviously, and then Australia is going to have some element of the [COP] presidency.
Most importantly, I don't think expectations are going to be high and everything in life, whether it's personal, institutional or political, is relative to expectations.
Request Reprint & LicensingSubmit CorrectionView Editorial & AI Guidelines
Add Newsweek as a preferred source on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search.Recommended For You
Climate ChangeThe Roof Is on Fire: Will COP30 Finally Start Phasing Out Fossil Fuels?5 min read
Better PlanetWith Turkey as Next COP Host, Climate Talks Again Go to Authoritarians5 min read
Better PlanetWhy Rising Methane Emissions Could Hurt the U.S. Oil and Gas Sector6 min read
AutosHonda Invests in Soil Carbon Removal Credit Scheme to Offset Emissions3 min read
Better PlanetWhitehouse Calls Trump’s Climate Moves ‘Thuggish’ as He Goes Solo at COP306 min read
Better PlanetCOP30 Climate Talks Flooded With Fossil Fuel Lobbyists: Report4 min readRelated Podcasts
Top Stories
WorldTrump Peace Plan: Secret Russia Talks, Big Attacks Hit Ukraine—Live Updates2 min read
NewsUncommon Knowledge: Trans Book Bans Often Backfire—On Their Creators5 min read
NewsUrgent Tornado Warning Issued as Severe Storms Threaten Mississippi, Louisiana: Live Updates1 min read
NewsTrump Canceling GDP Report Comes Under Scrutiny3 min read
WorldRepublican Says US ‘About to Go In’ to Venezuela, With Oil a Key Reason4 min read
NewsPam Bondi Reacts To Judge Tossing Comey, James’ Criminal Charges3 min readTrending
National Weather ServiceWinter Storm Alert Issued as 12 Inches of Snow Set To Hit3 min read
Higher EducationFull List of Degrees Not Classed As ‘Professional’ by Trump Admin8 min read
LawsuitCampbell’s Soup VP Mocks ‘Poor People’ Who Buy Its Food in Secret Recording6 min read
MoneyNew ‘Cash Law’ Could Change Grocery Store Rules3 min read
ThanksgivingHome Depot Responds to Thanksgiving Boycott5 min readOpinion
OpinionFormer White House Middle East Envoy: What We Keep Getting Wrong About the UAE and Sudan | Opinion5 min read
OpinionGovernment-Mandated Affordability—Music to Consumer Ears | Opinion6 min read
OpinionConventional Wisdom: Ukraine Peace Plan Edition2 min read
OpinionFour Ways to Fight Trump’s Golden Age of Corruption | Opinion5 min read
OpinionThe Post-Shutdown Mandate—It’s Time for California to Lead | Opinion5 min read
