US government may be abandoning the global climate fight, but new leaders are filling the void
A big question hung in the air: Who would step into the leadership vacuum?
I study the dynamics of global environmental politics, including through the United Nations climate negotiations. While it's still too early to fully assess the long-term impact of the United States' political shift when it comes to global cooperation on climate change, there are signs that a new set of leaders is rising to the occasion.
World responds to another US withdrawal
The U.S. first committed to the Paris Agreement in a joint announcement by President Barack Obama and China's Xi Jinping in 2015. At the time, the U.S. agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and pledged financial support to help developing countries adapt to climate risks and embrace renewable energy.
Some people praised the U.S. engagement, while others criticized the original commitment as too weak. Since then, the U.S. has cut emissions by 17.2% below 2005 levels – missing the goal, in part because its efforts have been stymied along the way.
Just two years after the landmark Paris Agreement, Trump stood in the Rose Garden in 2017 and announced he was withdrawing the U.S. from the treaty, citing concerns that jobs would be lost, that meeting the goals would be an economic burden, and that it wouldn't be fair because China, the world's largest emitter today, wasn't projected to start reducing its emissions for several years.
Scientists and some politicians and business leaders were quick to criticize the decision, calling it 'shortsighted' and 'reckless.' Some feared that the Paris Agreement, signed by almost every country, would fall apart.
But it did not.
In the United States, businesses such as Apple, Google, Microsoft and Tesla made their own pledges to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
Hawaii passed legislation to become the first state to align with the agreement. A coalition of U.S. cities and states banded together to form the United States Climate Alliance to keep working to slow climate change.
Globally, leaders from Italy, Germany and France rebutted Trump's assertion that the Paris Agreement could be renegotiated. Others from Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand doubled down on their own support of the global climate accord. In 2020, President Joe Biden brought the U.S. back into the agreement.
Now, with Trump pulling the U.S. out again – and taking steps to eliminate U.S. climate policies, boost fossil fuels and slow the growth of clean energy at home – other countries are stepping up.
On July 24, 2025, China and the European Union issued a joint statement vowing to strengthen their climate targets and meet them. They alluded to the U.S., referring to 'the fluid and turbulent international situation today' in saying that 'the major economies … must step up efforts to address climate change.'
In some respects, this is a strength of the Paris Agreement – it is a legally nonbinding agreement based on what each country decides to commit to. Its flexibility keeps it alive, as the withdrawal of a single member does not trigger immediate sanctions, nor does it render the actions of others obsolete.
The agreement survived the first U.S. withdrawal, and so far, all signs point to it surviving the second one.
Who's filling the leadership vacuum
From what I've seen in international climate meetings and my team's research, it appears that most countries are moving forward.
One bloc emerging as a powerful voice in negotiations is the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries – a group of low- and middle-income countries that includes China, India, Bolivia and Venezuela. Driven by economic development concerns, these countries are pressuring the developed world to meet its commitments to both cut emissions and provide financial aid to poorer countries.
China, motivated by economic and political factors, seems to be happily filling the climate power vacuum created by the U.S. exit.
In 2017, China voiced disappointment over the first U.S. withdrawal. It maintained its climate commitments and pledged to contribute more in climate finance to other developing countries than the U.S. had committed to – US$3.1 billion compared with $3 billion.
This time around, China is using leadership on climate change in ways that fit its broader strategy of gaining influence and economic power by supporting economic growth and cooperation in developing countries. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has scaled up renewable energy exports and development in other countries, such as investing in solar power in Egypt and wind energy development in Ethiopia.
While China is still the world's largest coal consumer, it has aggressively pursued investments in renewable energy at home, including solar, wind and electrification. In 2024, about half the renewable energy capacity built worldwide was in China.
While it missed the deadline to submit its climate pledge due this year, China has a goal of peaking its emissions before 2030 and then dropping to net-zero emissions by 2060. It is continuing major investments in renewable energy, both for its own use and for export. The U.S. government, in contrast, is cutting its support for wind and solar power. China also just expanded its carbon market to encourage emissions cuts in the cement, steel and aluminum sectors.
The British government has also ratcheted up its climate commitments as it seeks to become a clean energy superpower. In 2025, it pledged to cut emissions 77% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. Its new pledge is also more transparent and specific than in the past, with details on how specific sectors, such as power, transportation, construction and agriculture, will cut emissions. And it contains stronger commitments to provide funding to help developing countries grow more sustainably.
In terms of corporate leadership, while many American businesses are being quieter about their efforts, in order to avoid sparking the ire of the Trump administration, most appear to be continuing on a green path – despite the lack of federal support and diminished rules.
USA Today and Statista's 'America's Climate Leader List' includes about 500 large companies that have reduced their carbon intensity – carbon emissions divided by revenue – by 3% from the previous year. The data shows that the list is growing, up from about 400 in 2023.
What to watch at the 2025 climate talks
The Paris Agreement isn't going anywhere. Given the agreement's design, with each country voluntarily setting its own goals, the U.S. never had the power to drive it into obsolescence.
The question is if developed and developing country leaders alike can navigate two pressing needs – economic growth and ecological sustainability – without compromising their leadership on climate change.
This year's U.N. climate conference in Brazil, COP30, will show how countries intend to move forward and, importantly, who will lead the way.
Research assistant Emerson Damiano, a recent graduate in environmental studies at USC, contributed to this article.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Shannon Gibson, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Read more:
Governors are leading the fight against climate change and deforestation around the world, filling a void left by presidents
Companies will still face pressure to manage for climate change, even as government rolls back US climate policy
China's influence grows at COP29 climate talks as US leadership fades
Shannon Gibson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 35% tariff kicked in today on Canadian goods. How big of an impact will it have?
With the signing of an executive order, U.S. President Donald Trump upped Canada's tariff rate to 35 per cent, effective at 12:01 a.m. today. That's a 10 per cent increase on the 25 per cent rate that has been in effect on Canadian goods headed south of the border since March, and is a blanket tariff that will apply to Canadian products across the board. However, that doesn't paint the whole picture. A very small number of Canadian products will be subjected to the 35 per cent tariff. That's because the tariffs don't apply to all goods that are subject to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the existing free trade deal governing trade between the three countries. Those products can keep going across the border free of tariffs. Most of the goods Canada exports to the U.S. are covered by CUSMA. The Bank of Canada said in its monetary policy report released Wednesday that an estimated 95 per cent of stuff sent south of the border qualifies under that agreement. That means the new, higher 35 per cent rate will be felt by a small fraction of exports that are not CUSMA-compliant, which likely includes a broad array of products across all sectors, according to experts. "[CUSMA] is the one thing that is ensuring normalcy in trade flows in much of the economy," said Eric Miller, president and CEO of Rideau Potomac Strategy Group. "And so the maintenance of that exemption was absolutely crucial." WATCH | Trump increases tariff on Canada to 35%, White House says: There's no simple list of items that are CUSMA-compliant, because products are certified on a case-by-case basis, based on a number of complicated factors. In order to get the exemption, a certain amount of the product needs to be made in Canada, with Canadian inputs. Take the example of a steak versus that of a screwdriver. If a cow is born, raised, slaughtered and prepared in Alberta, then the steak — the end product — is clearly Canadian and would be shielded under CUSMA, says Miller. But a typical screwdriver is made of metal, along with plastic or rubber for the handle. The manufacturer would have to make sure that enough of the materials come from Canada, Mexico or the U.S. That amount is usually about 60 per cent, according to lawyer Daniel Kiselbach, a managing partner at Miller Thompson LLP. WATCH | What we know — and what's still unclear — after tariffs hiked on Canadian goods: Then, you have to make sure you're adding value to those parts and converting them to a finished product before shipping it out. In the case of the screwdriver, you're taking the raw materials and making them into a new, finished item, so that would meet the bar. Overall, anything harvested or mined is usually CUSMA-compliant, Kiselbach said. Anything manufactured or produced in Canada gets more complicated. Electronics and machinery, in particular, are product types that tend to have a harder time getting CUSMA certification. On top of that, the certification process can be challenging, requiring records showing where all a product's components come from, and it is costly. "[Businesses] don't necessarily understand what the rules are telling them," Miller said. "It's almost like cryptography or something." For that reason, Miller says some businesses have simply not acquired CUSMA certification in the past — something that's changing now that the rates are so much higher. WATCH | Is Canada-U.S. free trade dead?: While the fraction of companies that don't qualify for the free trade exemption might be small, Miller says the impact of the new rate should not be overlooked. Many of those who will be hit by the Saturday tariff increase will be small- to medium-sized businesses that rely on components that are made in countries outside of Canada — and can't easily replace them with materials sourced elsewhere. "If you are used to sourcing a particular input from China for the last 10 years, it's not so easy to go and say, 'Now I'm going to buy that good somewhere else,'" Miller said. "They can't easily change and they can't meet the rules, so they have to pay 35 per cent. And for them, going from 25 per cent to 35 per cent is pretty devastating," Miller. Kiselbach says 35 per cent tariffs might be higher than some companies' profit margins, meaning they'd be losing money on each item they sell at the current rate. Sectoral tariffs still in play The 35 per cent rate also has no bearing on the rates Trump has set for specific sectors. Those include a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminum, as well as 25 per cent on cars and auto parts, both of which had already been in effect. A new, 50 per cent tariff on some copper products, including copper pipes and wiring, also went into effect today. The Trump administration made carveouts for copper input materials such as ores, concentrates and cathodes, which is providing the industry some relief. And while the sector-specific rates are largely not new, the impact of these steep rates on important sectors cannot be ignored, said Alan Arcand, chief economist with the trade association Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. "These are very important industries for Canada," Arcand said. "These are tariff rates that are just not … sustainable for these industries. So that's really the rub of the issue right now." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A Fed governor is resigning, opening a spot for a Trump appointee
A member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors announced Friday that she is resigning several months before the end of her term, handing President Donald Trump an early opportunity to fill a key vacancy. Fed Governor Adriana Kugler is stepping down from her role, effective August 8. She was appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2023 and her term was slated to end in January 2026. The Fed did not cite a reason for her departure. 'It has been an honor of a lifetime to serve on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,' Kugler said in a statement. 'I am especially honored to have served during a critical time in achieving our dual mandate of bringing down prices and keeping a strong and resilient labor market.' Trump claimed to reporters on Friday that Kugler was resigning because of the Fed's stance on interest rates. 'I understand it was over the fact that she disagreed with somebody from her party …she disagreed with 'Too Late' on the interest rate,' he said. Trump has taken to calling Fed Chair Jerome Powell 'Too Late' because the president wants Powell to cut interest rates. Fed officials have held interest rates steady so far this year. Trump did not offer any evidence to back his claim. But, he said, he was 'very happy' about having an open spot on the Fed Board. Kugler was absent from the Fed's latest meeting, in which officials voted to hold borrowing costs steady for the fifth consecutive time. Trump has bashed the Fed for months because the central bank hasn't lowered interest rates this year, and Kugler's resignation means he will soon be able to install a new voice at a time when policymakers are unusually divided. And whoever Trump picks will then be eligible to be the next Fed chair, if they're confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Fed's board. According to Fed rules, the chair can be chosen only among the current members of the Fed's board. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the administration is already actively searching for Powell's successor. Contenders for the top job at the central bank include Bessent himself; Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor; Christopher Waller, a current Fed governor; and Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House's National Economic Council. But even when Powell's term as chair ends next year, he could still stay on the board, meaning Trump's choices for Fed chair will be limited to the current members of the board. Fed chairs technically have three jobs: member of the Fed's Board, chair of the Board of Governors and chair of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The FOMC is the Fed group that sets interest rates, and the chair is voted into their position by committee members. It's legally unclear if Trump has the power to demote Powell and elevate another governor as chair. Powell's term as a Fed governor ends in 2028. In a news conference Wednesday after the Fed announced its latest decision, Powell refused to say if he intends to remain on the board after his term as chair ends.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump removes official overseeing jobs data after dismal employment report
President Donald Trump has removed the head of the agency that produces monthly jobs figures for the US after a report showed hiring slowed in July and was much weaker in May and June than previously reported. Mr Trump, in a post on his social media platform, alleged that the figures were manipulated for political reasons and said that Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labour Statistics, who was appointed by former president Joe Biden, should be fired. He provided no evidence for the charge. 'I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,' Mr Trump said on Truth Social. 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified.' Mr Trump later posted: 'In my opinion, today's Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.' The charge that the data was faked threatens to undercut the political legitimacy of the US government's economic data, which has long been seen as the 'gold standard' of economic measurement globally. Economists and Wall Street investors have long accepted the data as free from political bias. After Mr Trump's initial post, labour secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer said on X that Ms McEntarfer was no longer leading the bureau and that William Wiatrowski, the deputy commissioner, would serve as the acting director. 'I support the President's decision to replace Biden's Commissioner and ensure the American People can trust the important and influential data coming from BLS,' Ms Chavez-DeRemer said. Friday's jobs report showed that just 73,000 jobs were added last month and that 258,000 fewer jobs were created in May and June than previously estimated. The report suggested that the economy has sharply weakened during Mr Trump's tenure, a pattern consistent with a slowdown in economic growth during the first half of the year and an increase in inflation during June that appeared to reflect the price pressures created by the president's tariffs. 'What does a bad leader do when they get bad news? Shoot the messenger,' Democratic senate leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a Friday speech. Ms McEntarfer was nominated by Mr Biden in 2023 and became the commissioner of the Bureau of Labour Statistics in January 2024. Commissioners typically serve four-year terms but since they are political appointees can be fired. The commissioner is the only political appointee of the agency, which has hundreds of career civil servants. The Senate confirmed Ms McEntarfer to her post 86-8, with now vice president JD Vance among the yea votes. Mr Trump focused much of his ire on the revisions the agency made to previous hiring data. Job gains in May were revised down to just 19,000 from a previously revised 125,000, and for June they were cut to 14,000 from 147,000. In July, only 73,000 positions were added. The unemployment rate ticked up to a still-low 4.2% from 4.1%. 'No one can be that wrong? We need accurate Jobs Numbers,' Mr Trump wrote. 'She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes.' Mr Trump has not always been so suspicious of the monthly jobs report and responded enthusiastically after the initial May figures came out on June 6 when it was initially reported that the economy added 139,000 jobs. 'GREAT JOB NUMBERS, STOCK MARKET UP BIG!' Mr Trump posted at the time. That estimate was later revised down to 125,000 jobs, prior to the most-recent revision down to just 19,000. The monthly employment report is one of the most closely-watched pieces of government economic data and can cause sharp swings in financial markets. The disappointing figure sent US market indexes about 1.5% lower Friday. Sign in to access your portfolio