Ex-US climate envoy: Trump threatening 'consensus science' worldwide

Trump's second term has seen sweeping rollbacks of domestic policy aimed at fighting climate change, and an effort to push fossil fuels abroad -- from embedding liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchases in trade deals to reportedly pressuring bodies such as the International Energy Agency.

With COP30 talks in Brazil fast approaching, Podesta spoke to AFP in Missoula about America's retreat from climate leadership -- and what it means for the planet and US influence.

Q: How do you view the Trump administration's international posture on climate?

Podesta: In the first term, they decided to abandon leadership. Now they're trying to lead the world in the wrong direction. In international forums they're trying to prevent climate action; in bilateral relationships they're promoting fossil fuels, and in multilateral fora they're showing disdain for any common action.

Q: There's talk they could even try to weaken UN consensus on climate change. How much damage can they do?

Podesta: They'll do all they can to tilt the field towards favoring fossil fuels. Their reasoning for going after science in the US will find its way into undermining the consensus science abroad. Whether they can actually change the dynamic at the IPCC (the UN climate science panel), particularly given they're withdrawing resources from the IPCC and forbidding US federal scientists from participating in studies -- I don't think they'll have much effect on the overall production of peer-reviewed science, but they'll cause a little havoc along the way.

Q: How does this posture affect US standing in the world, especially against China's push to dominate clean energy?

Podesta: It certainly reduces the sense of solidarity we have with countries that are not China. If we're in a great competition with China for global leadership, we're aligning with Russia and Saudi Arabia instead of with our natural allies in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. From a security posture, it's a terrible mistake.

Q: What will all this mean for COP30 talks in Brazil?

Podesta: We'll see this play out in Belem and beyond. There's still strong global consensus to move forward, but with the US not just absent from leadership but playing a revisionist role, it empowers countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia that are trying to water down ambition -- and now they have a strong ally in doing that.

Q: What do you think motivates Trump's approach?

Podesta: It's a mix of trying to turn clean energy into a culture-war issue while ignoring the real economics of the transition, and his fealty to fossil fuel interests that have funded his rise. But a lot of it is the politics of culture war — as long as he thinks it works for him, he'll keep pursuing it.

Q: What differentiates the Lighthiser case from Juliana, a previous federal youth-led climate case, which you helped oppose when you were part of the Biden administration?

Podesta: I do think it's different from Juliana because they're seeking some specific remedies against direct harm that's the result of actions taken by this administration. It's showing in dramatic terms what taking these actions today builds in harms tomorrow, and that can only come through the voices of these young people, and I thought they were moving in the testimony they gave... It's their future that's at stake in this.

ia/mdo/ksb