- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
On his first day in office, US President Donald Trump has officially begun the one-year process of leaving the 2015 Paris climate agreement and announced a pause on all government aid funding for 90 days pending a review of the aid programme’s policy goals.
The US provided around $11 billion in 2024 to help developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to climate change but all current and future projects are now under threat from the review.
Mattias Söderberg is global climate lead at Danish charity DanChurchAid, which receives funding from USAID. “We are not surprised, but very disappointed”, he said. “Every dollar makes a difference, and when aid is paused, it has effect for people on the ground in some of the most vulnerable countries.”
The CEO of Mercy Corps Tjada D’Oyen McKenna called on governments, civil society and the private sector to “step up where leadership is lacking and accelerate efforts to reduce emissions, scale up climate finance, and contribute to a climate-resilient future for all people.”
Executive orders
After his inauguration, Trump signed a series of executive orders in front of a crowd at a sports stadium in Washington DC.
Among them was an order that announced the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and accused the 2015 global deal of steering “American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require, or merit, financial assistance in the interests of the American people”.
The document also requires the heads of government departments and federal agencies tasked with disbursing climate funds overseas to submit within 30 days a report detailing their actions “to revoke or rescind” policies implemented to support former president Joe Biden’s international climate finance plan.
The executive order also added that the US would “immediately cease or revoke any purported financial commitment made by the United States under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).”
During the first Trump administration, the US continued to fund the UNFCCC and to report emissions data but Cambridge University academic Joanna Depledge said this language suggests they are unlikely to do so again. The US contributes about a fifth of the UNFCCC’s budget and owes it about $10 million.
The previous Biden administration promised to work with Congress to deliver $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund. This money was never received by the UN fund and is very unlikely to be delivered under Trump.
A separate order signed by Trump targets overseas aid spending more widely, saying it would be reviewed over the next 90 days by the State Department for “programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy”.
Wall Street’s faltering on climate action opens up opportunity for European banks
While the US will join Iran, Libya and Yemen in the small club of nations outside of the Paris Agreement, Trump stopped short of leaving the broader, older and more fundamental UNFCCC – which all UN nations are signed up to.
This means the US will retain the right to attend COP talks as a party to the convention, with full voting and speaking powers, rather than as just an observer state.
Legal experts are divided on whether Trump has the power to leave the UNFCCC without the approval of two-thirds of the US Senate, as the Senate enorsed the UNFCCC almost unanimously in 1992.
Trump also announced measures aiming to boost US oil and gas production and restrict the development of wind energy.
(Reporting by Joe Lo, Editing by Matteo Civillini)
The post Trump orders US to quit Paris agreement and pause all foreign climate finance appeared first on Climate Home News.
Trump orders US to quit Paris agreement and pause all foreign climate finance
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.
- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
What timeline options were delegates debating?
Top of the agenda during the Addis Ababa meeting was a decision on the timeline of the publication of AR7’s three working group reports – also known as the “work plan”. The three reports cover climate science (WG1), impacts and adaptation (WG2) and mitigation (WG3).
Countries failed to reach a resolution on the scheduling of the influential reports at five consecutive IPCC meetings since 2024 – despite drafting being well underway.
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s write-up of discussions in Istanbul, Sofia, Hangzhou, Lima and Bangkok.)
Reporting from the ENB from inside these meetings has highlighted that countries are s


