In a confrontational speech to the UN General Assembly, US President Donald Trump rejected global efforts to transition to renewable energy and urged countries to keep drilling for fossil fuels – dismissing scientists’ warnings that this could set the world on a dangerous trajectory of unfettered warming.
Under the Trump administration, the White House has reversed ambitious climate policies and has walked away from climate action at the UN by crippling climate finance and removing US diplomats from key summits.
In Tuesday’s speech at the UN headquarters in New York, Trump made a series of false statements about renewable energy, the Paris Agreement, climate finance and climate science – describing climate change as “the greatest con job”.
Gina McCarthy, a climate adviser to former US President Joe Biden, said Trump had embarrassed the United States on the global stage, thrown away US climate leadership and washed his hands of responsibility for protecting Americans from climate disasters.
-
Trump’s first 100 days: US walks away from global climate action
The Trump administration has pulled the plug on the UN climate process and its financial contributions, while at the same time backing fossil fuels and obstructing renewables -
Trump shifts US funds from shutting down foreign fossil fuels to expanding them
The US administration has pulled clean energy and just transition funding in South Africa and is pressuring EXIM and the World Bank to back fossil fuels -
After Trump’s pullback, Bloomberg promises to fill US funding gap to UN climate body
The announcement comes after Trump said the US should “immediately cease or revoke” any financial commitment made under the UNFCCC
Others dismissed the significance of Trump’s words, however.
Ilana Seid, a diplomat from the Pacific nation of Palau and the chair of the small island developing states negotiating group AOSIS, told a press conference the Republican president’s words were “not surprising” because his “position on climate has always been what it is”.
Here we address some of the false statements made by Trump:
Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels
Trump said in his speech that renewable energy, and in particular wind power, is “a joke”, calling it expensive and unreliable as a source of energy to power factories.
“[Wind power is the] most expensive energy ever conceived. You’re supposed to make money with energy, not lose money. You lose money the governments have to subsidise. You can’t put them out with that massive subsidy,” he said.
In reality, 91% of the new renewable power projects commissioned in 2024 were more cost-effective than any fossil fuel-fired alternative, according to analysis by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
The global average cost of electricity generated by solar panels (PV) and onshore wind was 41% and 53% cheaper last year, respectively, than the cheapest new fossil fuel-fired power plant, the report found.
Additionally, on a global level, government subsidies for fossil fuel consumption were nine times higher than those for renewable energy in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
China uses wind power more than the US
Trump said that, while China sells wind turbines, “they barely use them”, and that most of the Asian country’s energy comes from coal, fossil gas or “almost anything” but wind.
Although most Chinese energy does still come from coal, China also produces more electricity from wind power than any other country in the world – over twice as much as the United States.
China is building new wind and solar installations faster than any other country in the world, accounting for close to 70% of global wind installations in 2024, according to the Global Wind Report.
All these efforts on clean energy put China’s carbon dioxide emissions into reverse for the first time this year, with a 1.6% decrease during the first quarter, when compared with 2024.
Even under Biden, US did not pay its fair share
Trump said the US “was paying so much more than every country” due to the “fake Paris accord”. While it was not clear what money he was referring to, climate experts say that even under the Biden administration, the United States has not been contributing its fair share of global climate finance.
In 2022, when Biden was president, the US paid $14.37 billion in climate finance. While this was $370 million more than the second-biggest contributor, Japan, an analysis by the ODI think-tank suggests that due to the size of the US economy, the contribution was just a third of its fair share of developed countries’ $100 billion commitment.
Only Greece paid a smaller part of its fair share, and the US was largely responsible for developed countries’ notorious failure to meet the $100 billion goal on time, according to the ODI study.
Environmentalists do not want to “kill all the cows”
Trump said in his speech that radical American environmentalists are demanding “no more cows – we don’t want cows anymore because they want to kill all the cows”.
Many Western politicians and lobbyists opposed to climate action have made similar assertions when referring to green policies that affect food.
Beef is one of the highest-emitting food sources and some environmentalists have encouraged people to shift their diets towards chicken, fish or vegetables.
Last year, the World Bank advised governments to shift subsidies from high-emitting to low-emitting foods.
But, while some environmentalists want to shut down cattle farms, none have proposed killing cows. The beef industry – which they are challenging – kills nearly a million cows a day.
The post Fact-checked: Trump’s UN tirade against renewables, climate deals and environmentalists appeared first on Climate Home News.
Fact-checked: Trump’s UN tirade against renewables, climate deals and environmentalists
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines