Rob Hopkins, a founder of the Transition Town Movement
Episode 95: Rob Hopkins on the Role of Imagination in Climate Change Solutions
In this month’s Citizens’ Climate Radio episode, Rob Hopkins, one of the founders of the Transition Town movement, shows us how playful imagination can lead to real-world solutions, and you will discover how a life-sized whale made of plastic bags brought a community together to pass groundbreaking legislation. Artist Carrie Ziegler shares her extraordinary project that mobilized hundreds of schoolchildren to make a powerful statement about plastic pollution. In the Nerd Corner, Dana Nuccitelli tackles the big question: is a carbon price still effective in a post-Inflation Reduction Act world?
Rob Hopkins, Time Traveler and Creative Climate Change Campaigner
Rob Hopkins, co-founder of the Transition Network and Transition Town Totnes, and author of several influential books, including “The Transition Handbook” and “From What Is to What If: Unleashing the Power of Imagination to Create the Future We Want,” believes that playful imagination is crucial for tackling climate change. An Ashoka Fellow with a PhD from the University of Plymouth and two honorary doctorates, Rob encourages communities to adopt sustainable practices that promote self-sufficiency and environmental stewardship. “My work is about finding positive solutions to climate change,” says Rob, who also engages in printmaking in his spare time. His approach to climate activism is deeply rooted in the power of imagination, urging people to envision a future where collective action has transformed our world for the better.
One of Rob’s most innovative techniques involves time travel exercises, where he guides participants to imagine themselves in the year 2030 or beyond, a time shaped by years of dedicated environmental efforts. “I always remind people, ten years is actually a long, long time in terms of things that can happen,” he explains. Participants universally envision a cleaner, more content, and more connected world through these exercises. Rob’s ability to inspire others by helping them create a “new north star” in their lives, where a low-carbon future feels “delicious and irresistible,” makes his perspective both inventive and motivating. As he puts it, “We need to cultivate and nurture in people the most profound longing for a low-carbon future.”
Rob Hopkins hosts the podcast From What If to What Next, which explores imaginative solutions to some of the world’s biggest challenges. You can learn more about Rob, his books, and the Transition Town movement by visiting his website. You can watch the film, Transition 2.0 for free on YouTube. It is “an inspirational immersion in the Transition movement, gathering stories from around the world of ordinary people doing extraordinary things.” Additionally, check out his latest projects, the Ministry of Imagination Manifesto and Field Recordings from the Future. Rob’s forthcoming book, “How to Fall in Love with the Future,” is set to be released next year. In November 2022, Rob was honored as an Honorary Citizen of Liège in Belgium. Connect with Rob and explore his innovative approaches to climate activism at robhopkins.net.
Collaborative Art Meets Activism: Carrie Ziegler’s Whale Project Sparks Change
Carrie Ziegler is a collaborative artist based in Olympia, Washington, whose passion lies in creating large-scale art projects that inspire positive change. By working with schools, nonprofits, and local governments, Carrie brings together hundreds, sometimes thousands, of individuals to address environmental and social justice issues through art.
One of her most impactful projects involved creating a life-sized gray whale made entirely of plastic bags and trash, engaging over 900 children and adults. “I decided to do a project around that,” she explains, reflecting on her mission to end the use of single-use plastic bags. “We created this whale, this life-sized gray whale out of plastic bags and other trash.” This incredible undertaking educated participants about marine biology and plastic pollution and became a powerful symbol in the community, helping to shift public opinion and inspire legislative change.
Carrie’s work is a testament to the power of art in activism. The whale, modeled after a real whale found with plastic in its stomach, was publicly unveiled at the annual Procession of the Species celebration, where thousands witnessed its impact. “There were actually council members who invited me to bring the whale to their city council meetings,” Carrie recounts, highlighting the project’s role in successfully implementing plastic bag bans across local jurisdictions. However, her work’s true success lies in the personal empowerment it fosters. “There were kids, particularly middle school kids, who talked about how they felt personally responsible for that ban on plastic bags,” she shares. Carrie’s projects provide participants with a sense of ownership and accomplishment, proving that collaborative art can indeed change the world.
Visit Carrie Ziegler’s website to learn more about her inspiring projects, read her journal, and watch videos. For images of the whale project and additional information, check out the show notes at cclusa.org/radio.
Take a Meaningful Next Step
Each month, we will suggest meaningful, achievable, and measurable next steps for you to consider. We recognize that action is an antidote to despair. If you are struggling with what you can do, visit our Action Page.
Listen Now!
The Nerd Corner: Carbon Fee & Dividend in a Post-IRA World
Dana Nuccitelli, CCL Research Coordinator, explores whether a carbon price remains the best climate policy in a post-Inflation Reduction Act world. “Putting a price on carbon pollution would impact almost every sector of the economy,” Dana explains, emphasizing its cost-effective impact on emissions. Visit the Nerd Corner to join the conversation. You can also read some of Dana’s articles in The Guardian.
Good News
Citizens’ Climate Lobby volunteers nationwide achieved the goal of having over 30,000 climate conversations. By breaking the silence and discussing climate change with friends and family, they made the issue more real and paved the way for action.
Listener Survey
We want to hear your feedback about this episode. After you listen, feel free to fill in this short survey. Your feedback will help us make new decisions about the show’s content, guests, and style. You can fill it out anonymously and answer whichever questions you like. You can also reach us by email: radio @citizensclimatelobby.org
You can hear Citizens’ Climate Radio wherever you get podcasts.
We Want to Hear from You
- Email: radio @ citizensclimate.org
- Text/Voicemail: 619-512-9646
Special Thanks to the following people and groups for the ways they promote us through social media:
Reverend Doctor Jane Ellingwood, James Bradford III, Michael Cooper, Bill Nash, Wharton Sinclair, Sari Fordham, Karina Ramirez 1.5, and CCL Chapters in Arkansas, Boulder, Colorado, San Diego, Alameda, and Silicon Valley North in California
Production Team:
- Written and produced by Peterson Toscano and the CCR team
- Technical Support: Horace Mo, Erika Valdez, Ricky Bradley, and Brett Cease
- Social Media Assistance: Flannery Winchester
Music is provided by epidemicsound.com
Social Media:
Follow us on X, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, and TikTok.
Read the Transcript
Rob Hopkins on the Role of Imagination in Climate Change Solutions
SPEAKERS
Carrie Ziegler, Dana Nuccitelli, Horace Mo, Erica Valdez, Peterson Toscano, Rob Hopkins
Peterson Toscano 00:00
Welcome to Citizens Climate Radio, your climate change podcast.
Peterson Toscano 00:04
In this show, we highlight people’s stories, we celebrate your successes, and together we share strategies for talking about climate change. I’m your host, Peterson Toscano. Welcome to Episode 95 of Citizens Climate Radio, a project of Citizens Climate Education. This episode is airing on Friday, May 24 2024. Erica Valdez and Horace Mo are very busy working on next month’s episode. I hope to check in with them before the show ends though. In the Nerd Corner, Dana Nuccitelli answers a very important question. Is a carbon price still the most effective policy in a post-Inflation Reduction Act world? Carrie Ziggler joins us to share an extraordinary community art project that resulted in the passage of meaningful legislation. She engaged hundreds of schoolchildren to use plastic bags to send a big message to lawmakers. Carrie demonstrates how art and artists can help us convince the public and policymakers to make the right choices.
Peterson Toscano 01:20
But first, I want to immerse us in a world of imagination. Some may think that playful imagination is a helpful escape from real world problems, my guest begs to differ, he sees our imaginations as the essential tool for addressing these problems. My first guest is a time traveling do gooder in England. Now, it’s not Doctor Who.
Rob Hopkins 01:50
So I’m Rob Hopkins, I am the founder of the Transition Movement. My work is about finding positive solutions to climate change. And in my spare time I do printmaking. So it’s normally easy just to say I’m an I’m an author and an activist really saves a bit of time.
Peterson Toscano 02:09
The Transition Town Movement is a community-led initiative that aims to promote self-sufficiency and reduce the impact of peak oil, climate change, and economic instability. It encourages communities to take control of their own future by adopting sustainable practices that are kinder to the environment. Rob and his colleagues have successfully implemented innovative approaches to change the way certain towns operate. I recommend you watch the documentary Transition 2.0, you’ll learn about inspiring stories of communities working together for self-sufficiency, and sustainability. It features innovative ideas like printing local money, growing food locally, and setting up community power stations. But I didn’t invite Rob Hopkins to our show to discuss the transition movement. Instead, I requested him to share the tools, techniques and strategies he uses to think outside the box. And this includes time travel.
03:15
And so when the time machine, I would say to people to close their eyes and imagine that we’re going to travel to 2030. And I have different techniques that I use to do it and make it quite theatrical, you know. And then I say, with the 2030 we’re traveling to isn’t a utopia. It’s not a dystopia, either. But it’s the result of us having spent those years between now and then doing everything we could possibly have done. And I always remind people that 9/10 years is actually a long, long time in terms of things that can happen. It took 10 years for Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat on the bus for the Civil Rights Act to be passed in America. 10 years from the first international sanctions on South Africa, to the new constitution being created in South Africa. 10 years after the first iPhone, half the people in the world have a smartphone, and maybe that’s not such a good one. But you know, things change really, really fast. So I asked people to close their eyes and to imagine that they’re moving through time, and then they’re being dropped into that 2030, And then just to take a walk around, using all their senses, what does that world smell like feel like tastes like.
Rob Hopkins 04:17
I’ve done that exercise now with 1000s of people. And I’ve done it with 10 people in a workshop. I’ve done it with one and a half 1000 people in a hall in Belgium. And what’s so fascinating to me about that activity is that no one ever says we’ve got a new IKEA, which is four times bigger than the one we had in 2022. No one ever says, Oh, my iPhone 28 can give me real tattoos or something. You know, it’s like, actually, everybody says, the air smells cleaner. The birdsong is louder. There are less cars, people seem more content, and they spend more time with their families. They don’t work so much. Their work is more meaningful, and so on and so on. You know, It’s universal. So then I always think, Well, why do we not start there and work backward? We start with how we are going to achieve that. What would that look like? And that’s why, in the podcast that I do, every episode starts with us doing some time travel. So if we’re talking about universal basic income, we don’t debate whether it’s a good idea or not, we say we’ve had a universal basic income now for eight years. How does the world taste differently? How does it sound differently? For me, there’s something about helping people to create a new North Star in their life. Like, I want that.
Peterson Toscano 05:40
Rob Hopkins’s podcast is called From What is to What If, and it’s named after his 2020 book about unleashing the power of imagination to create the future we want.
Rob Hopkins 05:52
I feel like there are some people like me who can read terrifying, depressing climate papers and somehow translate that transmute that into doing something for a lot of people. They just get really stuck and really paralyzed. And I think if all of our narrative is just about extinction and collapse, we don’t offer anything. You know, the poet Rilke said something like, “The future must enter into a long time before it happens.” So beautiful, you know, and if we don’t allow the future to enter into people, if we don’t cultivate and nurture in people, the most profound longing for a low carbon future, if the way we talk about a low carbon future doesn’t make it sound, delicious, and irresistible, and abundant and gorgeous, then why is anyone going to want to do that? We’re only going to go there if it feels like we’re moving towards something irresistible rather than being dragged away from something irreplaceable. So how do we do that? So for me, I use that idea of time travel in lots of different ways.
Peterson Toscano 07:06
Rob has often said, climate change is the greatest failure of the imagination in the history of humanity.
07:13
The big challenge that we have is that there are so many people in positions of power who should be reimagining everything. I mean, you know, just to put it in context, you know, the United Nations said staying below 1.5 degrees was beyond us unless we were to see the rapid transformation of societies, is what they called it. So, loads of people, all the headlines are saying, well, 1.5 degrees beyond us now; maybe that’s the wrong way of looking at it. Maybe the question is, how do we create a rapid transformation of societies if that’s our only option? Like death, or rapid transformation of societies? I think we should put a bit more effort into that rapid transformation in societies but myself, you know, thinking outside the box here, Mariame Kaba, who’s a great hero of mine, amazing prison abolition activist in the US, she said, we live in a system that has been locked into a false sense of inevitability. I love it. So many diff, and so many of the people who are holding on to those positions just can’t imagine anything else. The people in the Department of Transport, can’t imagine a future without cars, and the people in the Department of Energy can’t imagine a future without fossil fuels.
Peterson Toscano 08:22
I am not at all surprised that important business and government leaders have not reached the point where they can imagine big systemic changes. They take themselves very seriously. And so much creativity and fresh ideas come through cultivating a playful attitude.
08:45
When I do workshops and trainings with people, a lot of it is about play, and just getting people to play again. And so whenever I do workshops, even with the most serious, uptight people who often come with lots of baggage around being right, and not wanting to make a fool of themselves and not wanting to take any risks and having to get everything right, is I put them into groups of five or six people. I give them a potato each, and I give them a bunch of cocktail sticks. And I say you can go outside you can add anything to this that you want. But I want you back here in 25 minutes with a creature, and I want to know its name. I want to know its mating call. And I want to know what his diet is. And they just go off, and you watch them go, and they just giggle for about 25 You just hear them go rugger. Oh, and the beautiful thing about it is you can’t make anything out of potatoes. That isn’t ridiculous. Even even if you’re the most perfectionist engineer, you can’t make something out of potatoes. That doesn’t look really stupid. And it’s a really nice way of just getting people freed up a bit.
Rob Hopkins 09:48
When I do public talks as well. They become more and more like workshops and we do an exercise called yes and and yes, but which is what you learn in improv. You know the difference between Yes, But Yes And. which is really important because all of us, as activists, have experienced everything we encounter being yes. But yes, but all yes, but there’s, there’s no money for that. There’s no whatever, there’s no time we tried that before, it didn’t work, all that kind of stuff. When I design a two-day workshop, I’m going to be running in Belgium in a couple of weeks. And we spent half of the first day in the forest, using a set of exercises, which allowed adults to see the world to see the forest like they saw it when they were a child. That kind of shift in our thinking is really, really powerful, too. So in terms of an exercise, there’s something that was developed by Transition Network working with encounters to an amazing community arts organization, and it’s called Transition Town Anywhere. So the idea is you get about between two and 400 people, you need a big space, you start with doing some time traveling, and stepping into the future that we could still create. And then you think, Well, what am I doing in that future? What’s my role? What’s my job, what’s my work, then you meet other people who were thinking along the same lines, you design a project together, something you’re doing, maybe you’re running the bank, maybe you’re running the energy company, maybe or whatever. But then you literally build it with cardboard boxes, bamboo sticky tape string and pens; you create this three-dimensional version of that future that you then live in and inhabit and play in. And it’s one of the most magical, magical things I’ve ever been part of. I think we need to find a lot more things like that, and our activism needs to feel a lot more like play.
Peterson Toscano 11:40
Rob reminds us that speaking about climate change is significant climate work. How we speak about it, though, can make all the difference.
11:49
It’s really important that we have conversations with everybody we know about climate change and the situation that we’re in. You know, when people say, Well, why do you do this? It’s like, it’s one thing to say because I’m terrified about the future and climate change. Then maybe we could flip that and say it’s because I am so longing for a world where the birdsong is louder than the traffic. I’m so longing for a world where the rivers and our cities are so clean that people can swim to work. As the world grew warmer, we realized that the tarmac was killing people. Concrete was killing people. And so we took up 80% of it. And now our cities are full of wildflowers and plants, and I so long for a world where when you go to visit the theater, they’ve covered the outside of that building, with bird boxes and insect hotels. So when you approach the theater, it’s more alive with wildlife than visiting a jungle or something. Give people that longing. Cultivating longing is the most important thing, and I think that we can be doing it as activists. And we can’t do that. Without artists, storytellers. musicians, poets, film writers, novelists. We need everybody because we have to bring this alive. There’s a beautiful quote by Arundhati Roy. She says, what lies ahead, reimagining the world. Only that.
Peterson Toscano 13:30
That was Rob Hopkins, host of the podcast from what is to what if? Learn more about him his book and the Transition Town movement at his website, Rob hopkins.net. And while you’re there, definitely check out his newest projects. The Ministry of imagination manifesto and field recordings from the future.
Peterson Toscano 14:02
Coming up, Dana Nuccitelli will answer the question is a carbon price still the most effective policy in a post inflation Reduction Act world? Carrie Ziegler, an artist on the West Coast of the USA tells us about a community art project that changed a law and I have a good news story about a successful campaign that got a lot of people talking about climate change, stay tuned.
Peterson Toscano 14:53
When we want elected officials to change policy, we have many ways to reach them and build political will We write letters to the editor and op ed pieces, we start petitions, we sent messages to our lawmakers and even show up at their offices to compel them to vote for an environmental and climate friendly policy. We need to be heard above all the other voices. Without a big public relations budget. What can we do? That’s when we can turn to our friendly neighborhood artists.
Carrie Ziegler 15:34
My name is Carrie Ziegler. I am a collaborative artist living here in Olympia, Washington. And what I love to do more than just about anything else is to work with hundreds, sometimes 1000s of individuals with schools, nonprofits, and local government to create these multifaceted, large-scale collaborative art and action projects around different environmental and social justice issues. With the goal of inspiring positive change in our world. I went on a journey, you know, through a life journey for many years trying to figure out how to bring art and science together. I did that in so many different ways. I worked as a naturalist and environmental educator for a long time. So, I’ve worked with people a lot, and I would often bring art into that work. It took a long time for me to figure out what collaborative art was; for me that really came together.
Carrie Ziegler 16:32
About 10 years ago, when I was working for my county, Thurston County, as an environmental educator, I had the opportunity to create some programming for youth and my supervisor was very open-ended about it. During that time, we were going through a process in our county to decide whether or not the public was ready to want it to ban single use plastic bags. And since I was really passionate about that idea, I wanted to end the use of single-use plastic bags, so I decided to do a project around that. But as I started thinking about it, as often happens for me, my ideas they just kind of grow and get bigger. And so I thought, hey, why not create a life-sized plastic whale out of plastic bags and other trash? Amazingly, my supervisor said, Okay, go for it. You don’t get any money. We’re not giving you a budget for this. But you can go and do this wild idea.
Carrie Ziegler 17:31
I ended up working with over 900 Kids and adults in classrooms and community spaces, teaching them about marine biology, the impacts that plastic bags have on our environments, and talking about solutions to that. And then, together with all these different people, we created this whale, this life-sized gray whale, out of plastic bags and other and other trash. And so each individual who was part of that project, got to do a piece of this work. Younger kids, elementary school-aged kids, they would bring their plastic bags in from home. We all used to have this giant bag full of plastic bags just stuffed under our counter, in the closet, or somewhere. And so they would bring in these bags full of bags, and we would pull them out and create this mountain of plastic trash in the middle of their classroom or the school gymnasium. And we use that to help us understand how many plastic bags are used daily. In our school in the city. You know, throughout the world. It was really, really powerful.
Carrie Ziegler 18:39
They cut and braided plastic bags, but they loved it. I must have taught 500 kids how to braid that winter. Some of them got so into it, they would just they wouldn’t stop they would have these long braids spread all the way across gymnasium floors. It was really incredible. So the whale was modeled after an actual whale that had washed up on shore in Seattle the previous year and that whale, and when the scientists did the necropsy, they found, amongst other things, they found a bunch of plastic bags in its stomach. That’s why we chose the gray whale. The whale was 32 feet long, about the size of a juvenile gray whale. This project was so impactful, because the students and the people who worked on it, only got to see the beginning of it.
Carrie Ziegler 19:31
But then I ensured that the whale was in a very public place when it was all completed. We unveiled the whale, if you will, at our annual Procession of the Species celebration. It was in this parade where 1000s upon 1000s of people got to see it and then it was on display in the Washington Center for the Performing Arts, and everyone was invited to come and see it. People got to see the impact of it. But the thing that’s really important about this project is that whales help shift public opinion in my county. There were actually council members who invited me to bring the the whale to their city council meetings to talk to their constituents about the importance of reducing the use of plastic bags. In part because of that project, all four of our local jurisdictions implemented a ban on plastic bags. That was incredibly powerful.
Carrie Ziegler 20:27
But you know what, it was more powerful than that. Some kids, particularly middle school kids, talked about how they felt personally responsible for that ban on plastic bags. That’s one of the things that collaborative art is so important for; it’s so powerful because it allows people to create something way larger than they ever could have on their own. And to be a part of something so much bigger and take ownership of it like those kids felt like they changed our government and did. When I think about collaborative art, they think about how it opens heart, how it breaks down barriers, and how it creates an opportunity for the people involved to have a story to tell about something that they are passionate about that can help them to connect with others and create change.
Peterson Toscano 21:26
That was Carrie Ziegler, an artist-activist, and so much more. Learn about her other projects, read her journal, and see videos on her website. That website is Carrieziggler.com Ziegler spelt Z I E G L E R. See our show notes for images of the well project. Visit CCL usa.org/radio.
Peterson Toscano 21:54
Now it’s time for the nerd corner hosted by Dana Nuccitelli citizen climates or research coordinator.
Dana Nuccitelli 22:02
Hi, I’m Dana Nuccitelli, CCL research coordinator, and this is the Nerd Corner.
Dana Nuccitelli 22:16
I’m here to highlight some interesting new climate research for the nerds out there and make it understandable for the nerd curious. In this episode, we consider the question: Is a carbon price still the best climate policy in a post-Inflation Reduction Act world?
Dana Nuccitelli 22:45
Research has long shown that putting a price on carbon pollution in combination with some other complimentary climate policies, cut emissions enough to meet America’s Paris commitments. That’s what studies were finding 10 years ago and five years ago, but what about today, Time keeps marching relentlessly forward, and in 2022, America passed its largest-ever climate bill in the Inflation Reduction Act or IRA. Since then, we nerds have been waiting for some researchers to evaluate how effective carbon price and other climate policies would be in today’s post-IRA 2024 world, and we finally got our wish.
Dana Nuccitelli 23:28
The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution brought together some top-notch economists to examine seven scenarios. Those scenarios centered mainly around four big climate policies. First, they looked at repealing or keeping the EPA’s various climate regulations. Second, they considered expanding or keeping or repealing the IRA. Third, they simulated implementing a clean electricity standard, requiring electrical utilities to get a certain percentage of their electricity from clean sources by a certain date. And fourth, they looked at what would happen if we put a modest price on carbon pollution. Expanding the IRA didn’t have much of an effect on climate pollution. Because the existing laws aren’t investing a lot of money in clean technologies. The clean electricity standard didn’t fare much better because it would only affect the power sector. But the clean energy tax credits in the IRA are already working to quickly decarbonize our electricity. But putting a price on carbon pollution would impact almost every sector of the economy. So, it had the biggest and most cost-effective impact on emissions. It turns out that a carbon price is still the single best climate policy.
Dana Nuccitelli 24:45
Overall, the study found that adding a modest carbon price on top of the IRA and EPA regulations would nearly meet America’s Paris commitments. It’s fair to say that adding clean energy permitting reform to maximize the eye Ra’s potential and implementing a more ambitious carbon price like that in CCL Staver bill, the Energy Innovation Act, would meet our goal of cutting America’s climate pollution in half by 2030. We know what to do now, so we just have to go out and make it happen. I’m Dana Nuccitelli. With the nerd corner. Thank you for being curious and for your commitment to climate progress. To join the discussion about climate science, technology, Economics, and Policy with CCL research team, check out the nerd corner at CCL usa.org/nerd-corner That CCL usa.org/nerd-corner. I hope to see you there.
Peterson Toscano 25:52
Thank you so much for that, Dana. If you have a question for Dana, email us radio at citizens climate.org. We will make sure he gets your message.
Peterson Toscano 26:03
Our good news story today is about many people talking about climate change. Climate communication expert Dr. Katharine Hayhoe has said no one does anything unless it feels important. And if no one talks about it, how important can it be? And quote, okay, challenge accepted. Last month, Citizens Climate Lobby asked volunteers nationwide to have open and honest conversations about climate change. Talk with friends, family and communities. Here is the good news. We achieved our goal of 25,000 climate conversations, we broke the silence about climate change, got practice talking about it and paved the way for action. When we talk about climate change with our friends and family, it becomes more real and relevant. And that makes it more likely that we can move from just talking to acting. That is one of many monthly actions that we do if you want to find out about these monthly actions visit CCL usa.org/action. And if you have good news you want to share in our program, email, radio at citizens climate.org. That’s radio at citizens climate.org.
Peterson Toscano 27:24
Hello, Horrace? Erica.?
Peterson Toscano 27:26
Hey, Peterson.
Peterson Toscano 27:28
Hey, I hope I didn’t interrupt you recording
Erica Valdez 27:30
No, we are all good. Okay, good.
Peterson Toscano 27:32
Well, I’m just finishing up the episode and wondering what’s happening next month, you and Horace are doing the entire episode from start to finish? What should we expect for episode 96.
Horace Mo 27:45
So I did an interview with Ann E Burg, and really entertaining and fully engaged interview about a newly published book, force of nature. And that book actually talks about Rachel Carson’s life, but it’s quite different from other books you would read about Rachel Carson, like the biography ones. I’m so excited to have in our upcoming episode 96. Excellent.
Peterson Toscano 28:11
And what about you, Erica? What do you bring to the episode?
Erica Valdez 28:15
I cover a story about fossil fuel divestment, and how students are organizing and empowering themselves, to get their institutions to divest from fossil fuels. I happen to be a part of my group at my university. So I bring some of their voices into the story as well.
Peterson Toscano 28:30
Wow, that’s great. You’re totally immersed in the story, like an embedded journalist.
Erica Valdez 28:35
Yeah. Very exciting.
Peterson Toscano 28:39
I know that you, too, are working on personal stories that have nothing to do with climate change.
Horace Mo 28:45
Yeah. Thanks to you. Peterson, actually. it’s also my first time writing a personal story in a very creative way. I wrote something about my high school experience, which greatly impacted me even now. And I think it will actually impact me for the rest of my lifetime. It’s a story, you know, simply about friendship and assimilating into a new community, which I was not familiar with at first. And then I kind of went through a personal growth period, and then got too used to it. I mean, I was grateful that I can kind of relate that personal story to climate change. But I will tell you how I did that. Unless you listen to our upcoming episodes. So you should sign up for that. And stay alert.
Peterson Toscano 29:32
Nice teaser. And Erica, your personal story is also about friendship and high school.
Erica Valdez 29:38
Yeah, my stories actually have a lot of common themes. In my story, I talk about how I tried to support my friend through a very difficult time in her life. I won’t tell you what it’s about, but it is about being in a new place and supporting those around you while they’re going through that, and how that connects to climate change as well in ways that I couldn’t even see before.
Peterson Toscano 30:00
I’m excited about this, because here at Citizens Climate Radio, we’ve been talking about telling new types of climate stories that are really out of the box. Totally different ways of doing this. And this is the time, so I’m so glad you’re gonna model this for folks with a story that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with climate change. And then you will apply the magical climate hibbott, which I’m super excited about. So that’ll happen in an upcoming episode. But next month for episode 96. We’re going to hear about Rachel Carson, we’re going to hear about divestment and you’re going to run the whole show. I’m so excited about it. Thanks so much for doing that.
Erica Valdez 30:39
Yeah, we’re excited too.
Horace Mo 30:40
Yeah, we’re ready to get started.
Peterson Toscano 30:43
I will let you get back to work.
Horace Mo 30:44
Thanks for showing up.
Peterson Toscano 30:52
We would love to hear from you about your experiences, telling climate stories, and how you have used imagination to communicate climate change. Or maybe you just want to say hi; podcasting can be lonely, so it’s nice. Getting a high every now and then. We want to hear from you. Feel free to send us an email radio at citizensclimate.org And you can also text or leave a voicemail at the following number: 619-512-9646. Listen in next month and you might just hear your message, send a text or leave a voicemail at 619-512-9646.
Peterson Toscano 31:40
Before we close the show I want to give some shoutouts to people and groups who have shown us a lot of love on social media. Many thanks to Rev. Dr. Jane Ellingwood, James Bradford III, Michael Cooper, Bill Nash, Wharton Sinkler, Sari Fordham, Karina Ramirez, 1.5, and CCL chapters in Arkansas, Boulder Colorado, San Diego, Alameda, and Silicon Valley North in California. Thank you.
Peterson Toscano 32:13
Thank you for joining me on episode 95 of Citizens Climate Radio. If you like what you hear and you want to support the work we do, visit Citizens Climate education.org You will learn how you can make a tax-deductible contribution. Here’s Citizens Climate Education, we want you to be effective in your climate work. So we provide training, local meetings, and many resources that are all designed to help you build the confidence and skills to pursue climate solutions. Find out how you can learn to grow and connect with others engaged in this meaningful work. Visit CCL usa.org.
Peterson Toscano 32:56
Citizens Climate Radio is written and produced by Peterson Toscano and the CCR team, Horace Mo and Erica Valdez, Ricky Bradley, and Brett Cease provide other technical support. Flannery Winchester provides social media assistance, and Madeline Para provides moral support.
Peterson Toscano 33:15
The music on today’s show comes from epidemic sound.com. Please share Citizens Climate Radio with your friends and colleagues. You can find our show wherever you listen to podcasts. If you listen on Apple podcast, please rate and review us which will make us stand out among the many climate change podcasts. You can now follow us on a variety of social media outlets Twitter or X, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook and TikTok. You could always call or text our listener number 619-512-9646, plus one if you’re calling from outside the USA. That number again is 619-512-9646. Visit CCL usa.org/radio. There you will see our show notes the transcripts, and find links to our guests. Citizens Climate Radio is a project of Citizens Climate Education
The post Episode 95: Rob Hopkins on the Role of Imagination in Climate Change Solutions appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.
Episode 95: Rob Hopkins on the Role of Imagination in Climate Change Solutions
Greenhouse Gases
DeBriefed 9 January 2026: US to exit global climate treaty; Venezuelan oil ‘uncertainty’; ‘Hardest truth’ for Africa’s energy transition
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
US to pull out from UNFCC, IPCC
CLIMATE RETREAT: The Trump administration announced its intention to withdraw the US from the world’s climate treaty, CNN reported. The move to leave the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in addition to 65 other international organisations, was announced via a White House memorandum that states these bodies “no longer serve American interests”, the outlet added. The New York Times explained that the UNFCCC “counts all of the other nations of the world as members” and described the move as cementing “US isolation from the rest of the world when it comes to fighting climate change”.
MAJOR IMPACT: The Associated Press listed all the organisations that the US is exiting, including other climate-related bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). The exit also means the withdrawal of US funding from these bodies, noted the Washington Post. Bloomberg said these climate actions are likely to “significantly limit the global influence of those entities”. Carbon Brief has just published an in-depth Q&A on what Trump’s move means for global climate action.
Oil prices fall after Venezuela operation
UNCERTAIN GLUT: Global oil prices fell slightly this week “after the US operation to seize Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro created uncertainty over the future of the world’s largest crude reserves”, reported the Financial Times. The South American country produces less than 1% of global oil output, but it holds about 17% of the world’s proven crude reserves, giving it the potential to significantly increase global supply, the publication added.
TRUMP DEMANDS: Meanwhile, Trump said Venezuela “will be turning over” 30-50m barrels of oil to the US, which will be worth around $2.8bn (£2.1bn), reported BBC News. The broadcaster added that Trump claims this oil will be sold at market price and used to “benefit the people of Venezuela and the US”. The announcement “came with few details”, but “marked a significant step up for the US government as it seeks to extend its economic influence in Venezuela and beyond”, said Bloomberg.
Around the world
- MONSOON RAIN: At least 16 people have been killed in flash floods “triggered by torrential rain” in Indonesia, reported the Associated Press.
- BUSHFIRES: Much of Australia is engulfed in an extreme heatwave, said the Guardian. In Victoria, three people are missing amid “out of control” bushfires, reported Reuters.
- TAXING EMISSIONS: The EU’s landmark carbon border levy, known as “CBAM”, came into force on 1 January, despite “fierce opposition” from trading partners and European industry, according to the Financial Times.
- GREEN CONSUMPTION: China’s Ministry of Commerce and eight other government departments released an action plan to accelerate the country’s “green transition of consumption and support high-quality development”, reported Xinhua.
- ACTIVIST ARRESTED: Prominent Indian climate activist Harjeet Singh was arrested following a raid on his home, reported Newslaundry. Federal forces have accused Singh of “misusing foreign funds to influence government policies”, a suggestion that Singh rejected as “baseless, biased and misleading”, said the outlet.
- YOUR FEEDBACK: Please let us know what you thought of Carbon Brief’s coverage last year by completing our annual reader survey. Ten respondents will be chosen at random to receive a CB laptop sticker.
47%
The share of the UK’s electricity supplied by renewables in 2025, more than any other source, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Latest climate research
- Deforestation due to the mining of “energy transition minerals” is a “major, but overlooked source of emissions in global energy transition” | Nature Climate Change
- Up to three million people living in the Sudd wetland region of South Sudan are currently at risk of being exposed to flooding | Journal of Flood Risk Management
- In China, the emissions intensity of goods purchased online has dropped by one-third since 2000, while the emissions intensity of goods purchased in stores has tripled over that time | One Earth
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
The US, which has announced plans to withdraw from the UNFCCC, is more responsible for climate change than any other country or group in history, according to Carbon Brief analysis. The chart above shows the cumulative historical emissions of countries since the advent of the industrial era in 1850.
Spotlight
How to think about Africa’s just energy transition
African nations are striving to boost their energy security, while also addressing climate change concerns such as flood risks and extreme heat.
This week, Carbon Brief speaks to the deputy Africa director of the Natural Resource Governance Institute, Ibrahima Aidara, on what a just energy transition means for the continent.
Carbon Brief: When African leaders talk about a “just energy transition”, what are they getting right? And what are they still avoiding?
Ibrahima Aidara: African leaders are right to insist that development and climate action must go together. Unlike high-income countries, Africa’s emissions are extremely low – less than 4% of global CO2 emissions – despite housing nearly 18% of the world’s population. Leaders are rightly emphasising universal energy access, industrialisation and job creation as non-negotiable elements of a just transition.
They are also correct to push back against a narrow narrative that treats Africa only as a supplier of raw materials for the global green economy. Initiatives such as the African Union’s Green Minerals Strategy show a growing recognition that value addition, regional integration and industrial policy must sit at the heart of the transition.
However, there are still important blind spots. First, the distributional impacts within countries are often avoided. Communities living near mines, power infrastructure or fossil-fuel assets frequently bear environmental and social costs without sharing in the benefits. For example, cobalt-producing communities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or lithium-affected communities in Zimbabwe and Ghana, still face displacement, inadequate compensation, pollution and weak consultation.
Second, governance gaps are sometimes downplayed. A just transition requires strong institutions (policies and regulatory), transparency and accountability. Without these, climate finance, mineral booms or energy investments risk reinforcing corruption and inequality.
Finally, leaders often avoid addressing the issue of who pays for the transition. Domestic budgets are already stretched, yet international climate finance – especially for adaptation, energy access and mineral governance – remains far below commitments. Justice cannot be achieved if African countries are asked to self-finance a global public good.
CB: Do African countries still have a legitimate case for developing new oil and gas projects, or has the energy transition fundamentally changed what ‘development’ looks like?
IA: The energy transition has fundamentally changed what development looks like and, with it, how African countries should approach oil and gas. On the one hand, more than 600 million Africans lack access to electricity and clean cooking remains out of reach for nearly one billion people. In countries such as Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania, gas has been framed to expand power generation, reduce reliance on biomass and support industrial growth. For some contexts, limited and well-governed gas development can play a transitional role, particularly for domestic use.
On the other hand, the energy transition has dramatically altered the risks. Global demand uncertainty means new oil and gas projects risk becoming stranded assets. Financing is shrinking, with many development banks and private lenders exiting fossil fuels. Also, opportunity costs are rising; every dollar locked into long-lived fossil infrastructure is a dollar not invested in renewables, grids, storage or clean industry.
Crucially, development today is no longer just about exporting fuels. It is about building resilient, diversified economies. Countries such as Morocco and Kenya show that renewable energy, green industry and regional power trade can support growth without deepening fossil dependence.
So, the question is no longer whether African countries can develop new oil and gas projects, but whether doing so supports long-term development, domestic energy access and fiscal stability in a transitioning world – or whether it risks locking countries into an extractive model that benefits few and exposes countries to future shocks.
CB: What is the hardest truth about Africa’s energy transition that policymakers and international partners are still unwilling to confront?
IA: For me, the hardest truth is this: Africa cannot deliver a just energy transition on unfair global terms. Despite all the rhetoric, global rules still limit Africa’s policy space. Trade and investment agreements restrict local content, industrial policy and value-addition strategies. Climate finance remains fragmented and insufficient. And mineral supply chains are governed largely by consumer-country priorities, not producer-country development needs.
Another uncomfortable truth is that not every “green” investment is automatically just. Without strong safeguards, renewable energy projects and mineral extraction can repeat the same harms as fossil fuels: displacement, exclusion and environmental damage.
Finally, there is a reluctance to admit that speed alone is not success. A rushed transition that ignores governance, equity and institutions will fail politically and socially, and, ultimately, undermine climate goals.
If Africa’s transition is to succeed, international partners must accept African leadership, African priorities and African definitions of development, even when that challenges existing power dynamics in global energy and mineral markets.
Watch, read, listen
CRISIS INFLAMED: In the Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo, columnist Marcelo Leite looked into the climate impact of extracting more oil from Venezuela.
BEYOND TALK: Two Harvard scholars argued in Climate Home News for COP presidencies to focus less on climate policy and more on global politics.
EU LEVIES: A video explainer from the Hindu unpacked what the EU’s carbon border tax means for India and global trade.
Coming up
- 10-12 January: 16th session of the IRENA Assembly, Abu Dhabi
- 13-15 January: Energy Security and Green Infrastructure Week, London
- 13-15 January: The World Future Energy Summit, Abu Dhabi
- 15 January: Uganda general elections
Pick of the jobs
- WRI Polsky Energy Center, global director | Salary: around £185,000. Location: Washington DC; the Hague, Netherlands; New Delhi, Mumbai, or Bengaluru, India; or London
- UK government Advanced Research and Invention Agency, strategic communications director – future proofing our climate and weather | Salary: £115,000. Location: London
- The Wildlife Trusts, head of climate and international policy | Salary: £50,000. Location: London
- Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, senior manager for climate | Salary: Unknown. Location: London, UK
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 9 January 2026: US to exit global climate treaty; Venezuelan oil ‘uncertainty’; ‘Hardest truth’ for Africa’s energy transition appeared first on Carbon Brief.
The Trump administration in the US has announced its intention to withdraw from the UN’s landmark climate treaty, alongside 65 other international bodies that “no longer serve American interests”.
Every nation in the world has committed to tackling “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” under the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
During Donald Trump’s second presidency, the US has already failed to meet a number of its UN climate treaty obligations, including reporting its emissions and funding the UNFCCC – and it has not attended recent climate summits.
However, pulling out of the UNFCCC would be an unprecedented step and would mark the latest move by the US to disavow global cooperation and climate action.
Among the other organisations the US plans to leave is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body seen as the global authority on climate science.
In this article, Carbon Brief considers the implications of the US leaving these bodies, as well as the potential for it rejoining the UNFCCC in the future.
Carbon Brief has also spoken to experts about the contested legality of leaving the UNFCCC and what practical changes – if any – will result from the US departure.
- What is the process for pulling out of the UNFCCC?
- Is it legal for Trump to take the US out of the UNFCCC unilaterally?
- How could the US rejoin the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement?
- What changes when the US withdraws from the UNFCCC?
- What about the US withdrawal from the IPCC?
- What other organisations are affected?
What is the process for pulling out of the UNFCCC?
The Trump administration set out its intention to withdraw from the UNFCCC and the IPCC in a White House presidential memorandum issued on 7 January 2026.
It claims authority “vested in me as president by the constitution and laws of the US” to withdraw the country from the treaty, along with 65 other international and UN bodies.
However, the memo includes a caveat around its instructions, stating:
“For UN entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.”
(In an 8 January interview with the New York Times, Trump said he did not “need international law” and that his powers were constrained only by his “own morality”.)
The US is the first and only country in the world to announce it wants to withdraw from the UNFCCC.
The convention was adopted at the UN headquarters in New York in May 1992 and opened for signatures at the Rio Earth summit the following month. The US became the first industrialised nation to ratify the treaty that same year.
It was ultimately signed by every nation on Earth – making it one of the most ratified global treaties in history.
Article 25 of the treaty states that any party may withdraw by giving written notification to the “depositary”, which is elsewhere defined as being the UN secretary general – currently, António Guterres.
The article, shown below, adds that the withdrawal will come into force a year after a written notification is supplied.
The treaty adds that any party that withdraws from the convention shall be considered as also having left any related protocol.
The UNFCCC has two main protocols: the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and the Paris Agreement of 2015.
Although former US president Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, its formal ratification faced opposition from the Senate and the treaty was ultimately rejected by his successor, president George W Bush, in 2001.
Domestic opposition to the protocol centred around the exclusion of major developing countries, such as China and India, from emissions reduction measures.
The US did ratify the Paris Agreement, but Trump signed an executive order to take the nation out of the pact for a second time on his first resumed day in office in January 2025.
Is it legal for Trump to take the US out of the UNFCCC unilaterally?
Whether Trump can legally pull the US out of the UNFCCC without the consent of the Senate remains unclear.
The US previously left the Paris Agreement during Trump’s first term.
Both the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement allow any party to withdraw with a year’s written notice. However, both treaties state that parties cannot withdraw within the first three years of ratification.
As such, the first Trump administration filed notice to exit the Paris Agreement in November 2019 and became the first nation in the world to formally leave a year later – the day after Democrat Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election.
On his first day in office in 2021, Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement. This took 30 days from notifying the UNFCCC to come into force.
The legalities of leaving the UNFCCC are murkier, due to how it was adopted.
As Michael B Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, explains to Carbon Brief, the Paris Agreement was ratified without Senate approval.
Article 2 of the US Constitution says presidents have the power to make or join treaties subject to the “advice and consent” of the Senate – including a two-thirds majority vote (see below).
However, Barack Obama took the position that, as the Paris Agreement “did not impose binding legal obligations on the US, it was not a treaty that required Senate ratification”, Gerrard tells Carbon Brief.
As noted in a post by Jake Schmidt, a senior strategic director at the environmental NGO Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the US has other mechanisms for entering international agreements. It says the US has joined more than 90% of the international agreements it is party to through different mechanisms.
In contrast, George H Bush did submit the UNFCCC to the Senate in 1992, where it was unanimously ratified by a 92-0 vote, ahead of his signing it into law.
Reversing this is uncertain legal territory. Gerrard tells Carbon Brief:
“There is an open legal question whether a president can unilaterally withdraw the US from a Senate-ratified treaty. A case raising that question reached the US Supreme Court in 1979 (Goldwater vs Carter), but the Supreme Court ruled this was a political question not suitable for the courts.”
Unlike ratifying a treaty, the US Constitution does not explicitly specify whether the consent of the Senate is required to leave one.
This has created legal uncertainty around the process.
Given the lack of clarity on the legal precedent, some have suggested that, in practice, Trump can pull the US out of treaties unilaterally.
Sue Biniaz, former US principal deputy special envoy for climate and a key legal architect of the Paris Agreement, tells Carbon Brief:
“In terms of domestic law, while the Supreme Court has not spoken to this issue (it treated the issue as non-justifiable in the Goldwater v Carter case), it has been US practice, and the mainstream legal view, that the president may constitutionally withdraw unilaterally from a treaty, ie without going back to the Senate.”
Additionally, the potential for Congress to block the withdrawal from the UNFCCC and other treaties is unclear. When asked by Carbon Brief if it could play a role, Biniaz says:
“Theoretically, but politically unlikely, Congress could pass a law prohibiting the president from unilaterally withdrawing from the UNFCCC. (The 2024 NDAA contains such a provision with respect to NATO.) In such case, its constitutionality would likely be the subject of debate.”
How could the US rejoin the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement?
The US would be able to rejoin the UNFCCC in future, but experts disagree on how straightforward the process would be and whether it would require a political vote.
In addition to it being unclear whether a two-thirds “supermajority” vote in the Senate is required to leave a treaty, it is unclear whether rejoining would require a similar vote again – or if the original 1992 Senate consent would still hold.
Citing arguments set out by Prof Jean Galbraith of the University of Pennsylvania law school, Schmidt’s NRDC post says that a future president could rejoin the convention within 90 days of a formal decision, under the merit of the previous Senate approval.
Biniaz tells Carbon Brief that there are “multiple future pathways to rejoining”, adding:
“For example, Prof Jean Galbraith has persuasively laid out the view that the original Senate resolution of advice and consent with respect to the UNFCCC continues in effect and provides the legal authority for a future president to rejoin. Of course, the Senate could also give its advice and consent again. In any case, per Article 23 of the UNFCCC, it would enter into force for the US 90 days after the deposit of its instrument.”
Prof Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale Law School, believes there is a “very strong case that a future president could rejoin the treaty without another Senate vote”.
She tells Carbon Brief that there is precedent for this based on US leaders quitting and rejoining global organisations in the past, explaining:
“The US joined the International Labour Organization in 1934. In 1975, the Ford administration unilaterally withdrew, and in 1980, the Carter administration rejoined without seeking congressional approval.
“Similarly, the US became a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1946. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration unilaterally withdrew the US. The Bush administration rejoined UNESCO in 2002, but in 2019 the Trump administration once again withdrew. The Biden administration rejoined in 2023, and the Trump Administration announced its withdrawal again in 2025.”
But this “legal theory” of a future US president specifically re-entering the UNFCCC “based on the prior Senate ratification” has “never been tested in court”, Prof Gerrard from Columbia Law School tells Carbon Brief.
Dr Joanna Depledge, an expert on global climate negotiations and research fellow at the University of Cambridge, tells Carbon Brief:
“Due to the need for Senate ratification of the UNFCCC (in my interpretation), there is no way back now for the US into the climate treaties. But there is nothing to stop a future US president applying [the treaty] rules or – what is more important – adopting aggressive climate policy independently of them.”
If it were required, achieving Senate approval to rejoin the UNFCCC would take a “significant shift in US domestic politics”, public policy professor Thomas Hale from the University of Oxford notes on Bluesky.
Rejoining the Paris Agreement, on the other hand, is a simpler process that the US has already undertaken in recent years. (See: Is it legal for Trump to take the US out of the UNFCCC unilaterally?) Biniaz explains:
“In terms of the Paris Agreement, a party to that agreement must also be a party to the UNFCCC (Article 20). Assuming the US had rejoined the UNFCCC, it could rejoin the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement (as it did in early 2021). The agreement would enter into force for the US 30 days after the deposit of its instrument (Article 21).”
The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, an environmental non-profit, explains that Senate approval was not required for Paris “because it elaborates an existing treaty” – the UNFCCC.
What changes when the US withdraws from the UNFCCC?
US withdrawal from the UNFCCC has been described in media coverage as a “massive hit” to global climate efforts that will “significantly limit” the treaty’s influence.
However, experts tell Carbon Brief that, as the Trump administration has already effectively withdrawn from most international climate activities, this latest move will make little difference.
Moreover, Depledge tells Carbon Brief that the international climate regime “will not collapse” as a result of US withdrawal. She says:
“International climate cooperation will not collapse because the UNFCCC has 195 members rather than 196. In a way, the climate treaties have already done their job. The world is already well advanced on the path to a lower-carbon future. Had the US left 10 years ago, it would have been a serious threat, but not today. China and other renewable energy giants will assert even more dominance.”
Depledge adds that while the “path to net-zero will be longer because of the drastic rollback of domestic climate policy in the US”, it “won’t be reversed”.
Technically, US departure from the UNFCCC would formally release it from certain obligations, including the need to report national emissions.
As the world’s second-largest annual emitter, this is potentially significant.
“The US withdrawal from the UNFCCC undoubtedly impacts on efforts to monitor and report global greenhouse gas emissions,” Dr William Lamb, a senior researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), tells Carbon Brief.
Lamb notes that while scientific bodies, such as the IPCC, often use third-party data, national inventories are still important. The US already failed to report its emissions data last year, in breach of its UNFCCC treaty obligations.
Robbie Andrew, senior researcher at Norwegian climate institute CICERO, says that it will currently be possible for third-party groups to “get pretty close” to the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions estimates previously published by the US administration. However, he adds:
“The further question, though, is whether the EIA [US Energy Information Administration] will continue reporting all of the energy data they currently do. Will the White House decide that reporting flaring is woke? That even reporting coal consumption is an unnecessary burden on business? I suspect the energy sector would be extremely unhappy with changes to the EIA’s reporting, but there’s nothing at the moment that could guarantee anything at all in that regard.”
Andrew says that estimating CO2 emissions from energy is “relatively straightforward when you have detailed energy data”. In contrast, estimating CO2 emissions from agriculture, land use, land-use change and forestry, as well as other greenhouse gas emissions, is “far more difficult”.
The US Treasury has also announced that the US will withdraw from the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) and give up its seat on the board, “in alignment” with its departure from the UNFCCC. The Trump administration had already cancelled $4bn of pledged funds for the GCF.
Another specific impact of US departure would be on the UNFCCC secretariat budget, which already faces a significant funding gap. US annual contributions typically make up around 22% of the body’s core budget, which comes from member states.
However, as with emissions data and GCF withdrawal, the Trump administration had previously indicated that the US would stop funding the UNFCCC.
In fact, billionaire and UN special climate envoy Michael Bloomberg has already committed, alongside other philanthropists, to making up the US shortfall.
Veteran French climate negotiator Paul Watkinson tells Carbon Brief:
“In some ways the US has already suspended its participation. It has already stopped paying its budget contributions, it sent no delegation to meetings in 2025. It is not going to do any reporting any longer – although most of that is now under the Paris Agreement. So whether it formally leaves the UNFCCC or not does not change what it is likely to do.”
Dr Joanna Depledge tells Carbon Brief that she agrees:
“This is symbolically and politically huge, but in practice it makes little difference, given that Trump had already announced total disengagement last year.”
The US has a history of either leaving or not joining major environmental treaties and organisations, such as the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol. (See: What is the process for pulling out of the UNFCCC?)
Dr Jennifer Allan, a global environmental politics researcher at Cardiff University, tells Carbon Brief:
“The US has always been an unreliable partner…Historically speaking, this is kind of more of the same.”
The NRDC’s Jake Schmidt tells Carbon Brief that he doubts US absence will lead to less progress at UN climate negotiations. He adds:
“[The] Trump team would have only messed things up, so not having them participate will probably actually lead to better outcomes.”
However, he acknowledges that “US non-participation over the long-term could be used by climate slow-walking countries as an excuse for inaction”.
Biniaz tells Carbon Brief that the absence of the US is unlikely to unlock reform of the UN climate process – and that it might make negotiations more difficult. She says:
“I don’t see the absence of the US as promoting reform of the COP process. While the US may have had strong views on certain topics, many other parties did as well, and there is unlikely to be agreement among them to move away from the consensus (or near consensus) decision-making process that currently prevails. In fact, the US has historically played quite a significant ‘broker’ role in the negotiations, which might actually make it more difficult for the remaining parties to reach agreement.”
After leaving the UNFCCC, the US would still be able to participate in UN climate talks as an observer, albeit with diminished influence. (It is worth noting that the US did not send a delegation to COP30 last year.)
There is still scope for the US to use its global power and influence to disrupt international climate processes from the outside.
For example, last year, the Trump administration threatened nations and negotiators with tariffs and withdrawn visa rights if they backed an International Maritime Organization (IMO) effort to cut shipping emissions. Ultimately, the measures were delayed due to a lack of consensus.
(Notably, the IMO is among the international bodies that the US has not pledged to leave.)
What about the US withdrawal from the IPCC?
As a scientific body, rather than a treaty, there is no formal mechanism for “withdrawing” from the IPCC. In its own words, the IPCC is an “organisation of governments that are members of the UN or World Meteorological Organization” (WMO).
Therefore, just being part of the UN or WMO means a country is eligible to participate in the IPCC. If a country no longer wishes to play a role in the IPCC, it can simply disengage from its activities – for example, by not attending plenary meetings, nominating authors or providing financial support.
This is exactly what the US government has been doing since last year.
Shortly before the IPCC’s plenary meeting for member governments – known as a “session” – in Hangzhou, China, in March 2025, reports emerged that US officials had been denied permission to attend.
In addition, the contract for the technical support unit for Working Group III (WG3) was terminated by its provider, NASA, which also eliminated the role of chief scientist – the position held by WG3 co-chair Dr Kate Cavlin.
(Each of the IPCC’s three “working groups” has a technical support unit, or TSU, which provides scientific and operational support. These are typically “co-located” between the home countries of a working group’s two co-chairs.)
The Hangzhou session was the first time that the US had missed a plenary since the IPCC was founded in 1988. It then missed another in Lima, Peru, in October 2025.
Although the US government did not nominate any authors for the IPCC’s seventh assessment cycle (AR7), US scientists were still put forward through other channels. Analysis by Carbon Brief shows that, across the three AR7 working group reports, 55 authors are affiliated with US institutions.
However, while IPCC authors are supported by their institutions – they are volunteers and so are not paid by the IPCC – their travel costs for meetings are typically covered by their country’s government. (For scientists from developing countries, there is financial support centrally from the IPCC.)
Prof Chris Field, co-chair of Working Group II during the IPCC’s fifth assessment (AR5), tells Carbon Brief that a “number of philanthropies have stepped up to facilitate participation by US authors not supported by the US government”.
The US Academic Alliance for the IPCC – a collaboration of US universities and research institutions formed last year to fill the gap left by the government – has been raising funds to support travel.
In a statement reacting to the US withdrawal, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea said that the panel’s focus remains on preparing the reports for AR7:
“The panel continues to make decisions by consensus among its member governments at its regular plenary sessions. Our attention remains firmly on the delivery of these reports.”
The various reports will be finalised, reviewed and approved in the coming years – a process that can continue without the US. As it stands, the US government will not have a say on the content and wording of these reports.
Field describes the US withdrawal as a “self-inflicted wound to US prestige and leadership” on climate change. He adds:
“I don’t have a crystal ball, but I hope that the US administration’s animosity toward climate change science will lead other countries to support the IPCC even more strongly. The IPCC is a global treasure.”
The University of Edinburgh’s Prof Gabi Hegerl, who has been involved in multiple IPCC reports, tells Carbon Brief:
“The contribution and influence of US scientists is presently reduced, but there are still a lot of enthusiastic scientists out there that contribute in any way they can even against difficult obstacles.”
On Twitter, Prof Jean-Pascal van Ypersele – IPCC vice-chair during AR5 – wrote that the US withdrawal was “deeply regrettable” and that to claim the IPCC’s work is contrary to US interests is “simply nonsensical”. He continued:
“Let us remember that the creation of the IPCC was facilitated in 1988 by an agreement between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who can hardly be described as ‘woke’. Climate and the environment are not a matter of ideology or political affiliation: they concern everyone.”
Van Ypersele added that while the IPCC will “continue its work in the service of all”, other countries “will have to compensate for the budgetary losses”.
The IPCC’s most recent budget figures show that the US did not make a contribution in 2025.
Carbon Brief analysis shows that the US has provided around 30% of all voluntary contributions in the IPCC’s history. Totalling approximately $67m (£50m), this is more than four times that of the next-largest direct contributor, the EU.
However, this is not the first time that the US has withdrawn funding from the IPCC. During Trump’s first term of office, his administration cut its contributions in 2017, with other countries stepping up their funding in response. The US subsequently resumed its contributions.
At its most recent meeting in Lima, Peru, in October 2025, the IPCC warned of an “accelerating decline” in the level of annual voluntary contributions from countries and other organisations, reported the Earth Negotiations Bulletin. As a result, the IPCC invited member countries to increase their donations “if possible”.
What other organisations are affected?
In addition to announcing his plan to withdraw the US from the UNFCCC and the IPCC, Trump also called for the nation’s departure from 16 other organisations related to climate change, biodiversity and clean energy.
These include:
- The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) – the biodiversity equivalent of the IPCC.
- Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development – a voluntary group of more than 80 countries aiming to make the mining sector more sustainable.
- UN Energy – the principal UN organisation for international collaboration on energy.
- UN Oceans – a UN mechanism responsible for overseeing the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and other UN agencies related to ocean and coastal issues.
- UN Water – the UN agency responsible for water and sanitation.
- UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD) – a UN collaborative initiative for creating financial incentives for protecting forests.
- International Renewable Energy Agency – an intergovernmental organisation supporting countries in their transition to renewable energy.
- 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact – a UN initiative launched in 2021 pushing governments, companies and organisations to achieve 100% low-carbon electricity generation.
- Commission for Environmental Cooperation – an organisation aimed at conserving North America’s natural environment.
- Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research – an intergovernmental organisation supported by 19 countries in North and South America for the support of planetary change research.
- International Energy Forum – an intergovernmental platform for dialogue among countries, industry and experts.
- International Solar Alliance – an organisation supporting the development of solar power and the phaseout of fossil fuels.
- International Tropical Timber Organization – an organisation aimed at protecting tropical forest resources.
- International Union for Conservation of Nature – an international nature conservation organisation and authority on the state of biodiversity loss.
- Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century – a global policy forum for renewable energy leadership.
- Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme – a regional organisation aimed at protecting the Pacific’s environment.
As well as participating in the work of these organisations, the US is also a key source of funding for many of them – leaving their futures uncertain.
In a letter to members seen by Carbon Brief, IPBES chair and Kenyan ecologist, Dr David Obura, described Trump’s move as “deeply disappointing”.
He said that IPBES “has not yet received any formal notification” from the US, but “anticipates that the intention expressed to withdraw will mean that the US will soon cease to be a member of IPBES”, adding:
“The US is a founding member of IPBES and scientists, policymakers and stakeholders – including Indigenous peoples and local communities – from the US have been among the most engaged contributors to the work of IPBES since its establishment in 2012, making valuable contributions to objective science-based assessments of the state of the planet, for people and nature.
“The contribution of US experts ranges from leading landmark assessment reports, to presiding over negotiations, serving as authors and reviewers, as well as helping to steer the organisation both scientifically and administratively.”
Despite being a party to IPBES until now, the US has never been a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the nature equivalent of the UNFCCC.
It is one of only two nations not to sign the convention, with the other being the Holy See, representing the Vatican City.
The lack of US representation at the CBD has not prevented countries from reaching agreements. In 2022, countries gathered under the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, often described as the “Paris Agreement for nature”.
However, some observers have pointed to the lack of US involvement as one of the reasons why biodiversity loss has received less international attention than climate change.
The post Q&A: What Trump’s US exit from UNFCCC and IPCC could mean for climate action appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What Trump’s US exit from UNFCCC and IPCC could mean for climate action
Greenhouse Gases
Analysis: World’s biggest historic polluter – the US – is pulling out of UN climate treaty
The US, which has announced plans to withdraw from the global climate treaty – the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – is more historically responsible for climate change than any other country or group.
Carbon Brief analysis shows that the US has emitted a total of 542bn tonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) since 1850, by burning fossil fuels, cutting down trees and other activities.
This is the largest contribution to the Earth’s warming climate by far, as shown in the figure below, with China’s 336GtCO2 significantly behind in second and Russia in third at 185GtCO2.
The US is responsible for more than a fifth of the 2,651GtCO2 that humans have pumped into the atmosphere between 1850 and 2025 as a result of fossil fuels, cement and land-use change.
China is responsible for another 13%, with the 27 nations of the EU making up another 12%.
In total, these cumulative emissions have used up more than 95% of the carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5C and are the predominant reason the Earth is already nearly 1.5C hotter than in pre-industrial times.
The US share of global warming is even more disproportionate when considering that its population of around 350 million people makes up just 4% of the global total.
On the basis of current populations, the US’s per-capita cumulative historical emissions are around 7 times higher than those for China, more than double the EU’s and 25 times those for India.
The US’s historical emissions of 542GtCO2 are larger than the combined total of the 133 countries with the lowest cumulative contributions, a list that includes Saudi Arabia, Spain and Nigeria. Collectively, these 133 countries have a population of more than 3 billion people.
See Carbon Brief’s previous detailed analysis of historical responsibility for climate change for more details on the data sources and methodology, as well as consumption-based emissions.
Additionally, in 2023, Carbon Brief published an article that looked at the “radical” impact of reassigning responsibility for historical emissions to colonial rulers in the past.
This approach has a very limited impact on the US, which became independent before the vast majority of its historical emissions had taken place.
The post Analysis: World’s biggest historic polluter – the US – is pulling out of UN climate treaty appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: World’s biggest historic polluter – the US – is pulling out of UN climate treaty
The Abuse of the Working Class
Looking Ahead to a Deepening Affordability Crisis, an Election and the Threat of an AI Investment Bubble
This Won’t End Well for the Minnesota Shooter
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change5 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases5 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval