- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
Andreas Sieber is the Associate Director of Policy and Campaigns at 350.org.
Trump has such a passion for tariffs he even imposed them on Antarctic islands – home only to penguins, who presumably pose a grave threat to American industry.
Now that the dust is settling – with global stock markets down and US dollar inflation up – two things are clear: the US president’s enthusiasm far outstrips his economic competence; and his shiny new tariffs won’t stop the global energy transition, no matter how hard he tries.
Donald Trump’s tariffs will harm the US economy and working families. But different from what some might fear, the tariffs won’t stop wind and solar energy. The United States’ share in the global cleantech trade is simply too marginal to dictate its terms in this sector. Other than Antarctic penguins, the global energy transition is safe from Trump’s tariffs.
Emerging economies set to dominate
A decade ago, Trump’s tariffs could have delivered a significant blow to the global energy transition: developed economies dominated solar and wind installations – accounting for roughly 70% of solar and 50% of wind capacity additions between 2010 and 2015.
Since then, two major developments must be taken into account. First, emerging economies’ share in renewable installations and the cleantech trade have boomed while the share of installations in advanced economies, including the US, has shrunk significantly. In 2009, about one in four solar panels was installed in the United States. In 2024, less than one in 12 renewable projects globally were added in the US.
According to the International Energy Agency, emerging and developing economies are set to dominate clean energy markets by 2030 – claiming 70% of solar PV, 60% of wind, and 60% of battery storage capacity.
Fossil fuel nations to see value of their economies shrink under new UN-agreed measure
Additionally, the US has not only isolated itself on cleantech in the last week, it has increasingly done so over the past 10 years. Today, China is by far the world’s largest producer and exporter of solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles – yet only 4% of those products go to the US, compared to 15% of China’s overall exports. In a market with growth dynamics like the green tech market has, tariffs on a 4% share of this market are a mere footnote.
China exported 235.93 gigawatts (GW) of solar modules in 2024, a market it dominates in an unparalleled manner, marking a 13% year-on-year increase from 207.99 GW in 2023. While impressive, the 13% of solar panel exports are small compared to other cleantech: China’s exports of wind turbines surged by over 70% last year. In the global cleantech race, the US is becoming a shrinking, isolated player.
Too poor to buy American luxury goods
None of this suggests Trump’s tariffs are harmless. Far from it – they will hit working families and poorer nations hardest. The former president insists he understands economic policy, but reality paints a different picture. Not only has he repeatedly conflated trade deficits with tariffs – a confusion that would earn a failing grade in any Economics 101 course – but analysts now expect U.S. inflation to rise faster than in almost any other major economy, surpassing even Canada, the EU, and many of the very countries targeted by his trade measures.
It’s the working people he claims to defend who will bear the brunt of these price hikes. Ironically, if the revenue from tariffs is used for anything by the Trump administration, it will be to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthy.
Meanwhile, markets are stumbling, and the erratic choreography of tariff threats, reversals, and ultimatums has spooked investors, in particular in the US. No one really knows what’s next. Should they swallow the cost of more expensive imports, or gamble on domestic production in uncertainty? With investor confidence sliding to levels unseen since the COVID-19 shock, “America First” increasingly resembles “Economics Last”.
Comment: Finance for renewable energy in sub-Saharan Africa is defying the odds
The persistent conflation of trade deficits with tariffs does more than reveal economic illiteracy – it inflicts real harm, particularly on poorer nations. The notion that all countries must maintain perfectly balanced trade is, at best, a fantasy. Consider Madagascar, where GDP per capita hovers just above $500. The US imports vanilla and critical minerals from the country. Yet the United States imposes trade penalties on Madagascar and many similar countries as if it were a competitive threat – despite the obvious reality that no one in Antananarivo, Cambodia, or Botswana is lining up to buy a Tesla.
Free trade is no silver bullet, and forcing developing economies in particular to open up their markets has historically done harm. But now, Trump is punishing people for being too poor to buy American luxury goods.
Protectionism or co-operation by the rest of the world?
The more urgent question now is how the rest of the world might recalibrate trade relations with each other – not just in retaliation against the United States. Will Trump’s tariffs trigger a broader shift toward protectionism, prompting countries to erect new trade barriers among themselves under the guise of “strategic autonomy”? This could indeed threaten the pace of transition efforts.
The US is drifting into economic isolation. Canada and Mexico have previously aligned their tariff responses; China, Japan and South Korea, though not formally coordinated, seem to be synchronising their strategies with more or less quiet efficiency.
Climate and the energy transition remain textbook examples of why Trump’s zero-sum instincts are wholly unfit for purpose. Global cooperation on climate is not optional. Even countries locked in geopolitical tension must find ways to collaborate on decarbonization – unless, of course, the plan is to compete all the way to climate collapse.
COP30 chief calls for global unity on climate action as cooperation falters
For too long, European leaders have indulged in the futile art of appeasing Donald Trump – among various avenues, by pledging to absorb vast surpluses of American liquefied natural gas. The irony, of course, is that this LNG isn’t needed; worse still, it risks locking Europe into years of inflated energy costs for consumers.
The strategy of placation has plainly failed. Doubling down on dependency through new US LNG deals is short-sighted on multiple levels – not just for those concerned about climate, but for anyone with even a passing interest in economic sovereignty.
Trump may have shocked the world, but he has equally exposed himself as a bully – one whose policies are not only reckless and unreliable but, frankly, embarrassingly misguided. The good news is the US cannot dictate the terms of cleantech trade and the energy transition. The world should move forward without him and keep climate and renewables as a critical area of cooperation and prosperity.
The post Trump’s tariff tantrum won’t stop the global energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.
Trump’s tariff tantrum won’t stop the global energy transition
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing count