By Megan O’Brien ’25, Environmental Studies Major
The morning we left for Baku the results of the 2024 election were released, naming Donald Trump as the next president of the United States. When Donald Trump was last elected, he pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement on climate, which resulted in no delegation being sent to the COPs during his years in office. He has made the same promise this term—no Paris Agreement for the US.
More people than I can count asked me about my thoughts on the election while at COP. Questions ranged from “What is it like” to “How do you feel” to “What is the US thinking? Again?” The United States’ work at COP29 seemed to be tainted by this inevitable withdrawal. I went into COP desperate for hope and I looked to the US delegation for it. Across the two weeks I attended every session I could host by the US delegation and other sub-national groups to try and conceptualize a path forward for climate work in the US under another Trump administration that has promised to “drill baby drill” as part of their 2024 campaign (npr).
Across each of these sessions, the messaging remained relatively constant. The delegates could not speak for the incoming administration; the Inflation Reduction Act was designed to be as “Trump-proof” as possible from the start; and there would be an increased focus on sub-national action both at COP and beyond in the coming years. On our first day, Jess, Sarah, Havi, and I attempted to attend a US Debrief on the election for RINGOs (Research and Independent NGOs, our “home” constituency). The room that they had dedicated within Zone C was overflowing. It would seem that we were not the only ones curious about the US messaging and goals going into the COP29. Even some delegates couldn’t get into the room, and so an overflow room was set up where the four of us made up half of the observers with three US delegates that eventually became six when the meeting next door wrapped up.
Wren Elhai, a member of the US State Department Communications team, led off the meeting and summarized the message that those next door were receiving. He started off by firmly stating that the US delegation had not changed its focus at this COP in light of the election and that they planned to “do as much as we can in the next two weeks.” There was also a strong emphasis on all that had been achieved in the last four years, reminding us of the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) and that climate change is a bigger problem than any one government. Wren also made sure to emphasize that the agreements being made at this COP were long term—for 2030 and even 2035.
Eventually, the other members of the delegation joined our small room and covered some more bases regarding the role of states. Julia Greensfelder, who proved to be a familiar face around COP for the next two weeks, made sure to emphasize the importance of decisions made at the state level. Dave Cavell, Head of External Affairs Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the Office of the U.S. Department of State, drove this point home by joking that the states are “where the rubber meets the road — or the sustainably produced rubber rather.”
Later that evening John Podesta, head of the US delegation and Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy, held a press conference that we were able to observe via webcast. He re-iterated much of what we had heard previously, though notably, added in his own confidence that the “trends are not going to be reversed” and that China would have a role to play as well, stating that “they can be more ambitious.” As the two biggest emitters, this highlights the tensions that exist between the US (the biggest emitter historically) and China (the biggest emitter currently). This interplay is notable. Podesta also made sure to praise the IRA’s “Trump-proof” nature.
At the RINGO debrief the following morning, the statements made by the US came up once again with questions arising as to what would be the plan for National Determined Contributions (NDCs), the efforts from the last four years already to make climate work as durable as possible, and the triggering effect the election is expected to have on sub-national action. In terms of NDCs, the US’ are due in February and many people were curious about whether the United States might release theirs before the change in administration. Though Podesta did not commit one way or the other, he made sure to say that even if an early NDC was released and then extinguished by the Trump administration, the sentiments expressed within could not be “extinguished in the hearts and minds of the American people.”
In the following days, I attended a US civil society debrief with John Podesta and later University Student talk/briefing with a panel from the US State Department, where you guessed it, we saw both Wren and Julia. In fact, due to the number of times we ran into Wren he began to laugh every time he saw us. At these talks the messages stated above remained constant, though in the private meeting with Podesta he used much stronger language to articulate his disappointment in the results of the election. Podesta addressed the room saying, we “are relying on you to carry this work forward” and “are going to need help from mayors and governors.”
There was a strong US subnational presence at COP this year, meaning governance at levels below the national or international level. Part of my quest to find “hope” led me to these talks where governors, mayors, representatives and more spoke about their experience conducting climate work at the state level. The Governor of Washington State, Jay Inslee, spoke on one panel that was participant impactful. He reminded the audience that we, being states, “always go faster than the federal government, we are really super-national now.” As a path of hope, the role of states cannot be overlooked. My interest in law at COP led me to the critical topic of top-down or bottom-up efforts. I am looking forward to exploring this further in a separate post, but in the case of “super-national” action the bottom-up efforts can drive just as much, if not more, change than that at the top.
