As 2025 draws to a close, the global fight against climate change has reached a pivotal crossroads. The latest round of United Nations climate negotiations, COP30, held in late November in Belém, Brazil, was marked by a conspicuous absence: for the first time in three decades, the United States did not send a delegation. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement and its subsequent actions have sent shockwaves through the international community, signaling a dramatic shift in the world’s approach to climate action.
According to Grist, the Trump administration not only abandoned the Paris Agreement but also took steps throughout 2025 to unravel domestic climate policy. Over the summer, President Trump pressed the Republican-controlled Congress to dismantle a Biden-era law that had been projected to cut U.S. emissions by roughly one-third compared to their peak levels. In the fall, U.S. officials used hardball tactics to stall an international plan to decarbonize the heavily polluting global shipping industry—an effort that had previously enjoyed broad support.
Perhaps even more consequential, the U.S. slashed the vast majority of its global climate aid funding, a move that left developing countries—those least responsible for, but most vulnerable to, climate change—without crucial support. As Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, chairperson of the African Union Commission, put it at COP30, “The continent has moved the conversation from crisis to opportunity, from aid to investment, and from external prescription to African-led. We have embraced the powerful truth [that] Africa is not a passive recipient of climate solutions, but the actor and architect of these solutions.”
The absence of the U.S. at COP30 was not lost on the world’s leaders. Christiana Figueres, a key architect of the Paris Agreement, offered a stinging farewell: “Ciao, bambino! You want to leave, leave.” Her words, reported by Grist, captured a sense of exasperation and a newfound determination among other nations to move forward without American leadership.
This year’s conference, dubbed the ‘forest COP’ due to its Amazonian setting and Brazil’s presidency, was initially seen by some as a potential breakthrough. Hopes were high, especially among civil society groups and vulnerable nations, that the proximity to the Amazon and President Lula’s climate commitments might spur decisive action. Yet, as reported in a critical analysis published in December 2025, COP30 ultimately failed to deliver on two of the most urgent fronts: phasing out fossil fuels and curbing deforestation. Neither was mentioned in the final agreement, a setback compared to cautious progress made in previous conferences.
Still, the Belem Action Mechanism, included in the agreement after years of advocacy by trade unions and civil society, was hailed as a step forward. For the first time, the need for a ‘just transition’—integrating the interests of working-class populations affected by the shift to climate-friendly economies—was formally acknowledged. Additionally, COP30 saw an increase in financial commitments to help developing countries with their climate transitions, though critics argue these measures fall far short of what’s needed.
One of the headline announcements was the launch of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a Brazilian initiative aiming to mobilize billions of dollars for forest protection. While the TFFF was welcomed by several governments and organizations, critics voiced concerns that it might further commodify forests and increase corporate and government control at the expense of Indigenous peoples. As highlighted in the post-COP analysis, “this signifies a dangerous new way of commodifying and commercializing forests and could lead to even greater control over forests by powerful government agencies and corporations, most likely at the expense of Indigenous peoples and other communities living in them.”
Beyond the official negotiations, grassroots mobilization took center stage. On November 15, 2025, during the COP30 period, a massive march brought together people’s movements from across the globe. Organizers claimed a turnout of 70,000, a figure some dispute but which nonetheless underscores the scale and energy of the demonstration. Indigenous peoples, especially from Brazil and Latin America, were highly visible, both in the official conference spaces and outside as protestors. Their demands for recognition and action culminated in dramatic direct actions, including the occupation of the official venue and a blockade that prompted the COP President to come out and address their concerns.
One immediate result of these efforts was the recognition of territorial rights for Indigenous peoples over 2 million hectares of Amazonian forest in Brazil. This victory, while significant, was seen as part of a broader pattern: meaningful climate action is increasingly being driven from the ground up, rather than by national governments or international institutions. As the post-COP analysis put it, “action on climate and other related crises is mostly going to come from grassroots mobilization, from ground action by Indigenous peoples, other local communities, mass movements, and civil society, and from enlightened local authorities who are influenced and guided by such movements or by political actors who really care.”
Meanwhile, the global landscape of climate action is being reshaped by industrial and economic forces. China has emerged as the world’s powerhouse for renewable technology, producing about 60 percent of wind turbines and 80 percent of solar panels globally. In the first half of 2025 alone, China added more new solar capacity than the rest of the world combined. Thanks to plummeting costs for solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries—driven largely by Chinese production—countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia are set for massive expansions in solar deployment over the next few years.
These developments have shifted the world’s projected warming trajectory. According to Grist, current policies and pledges put the planet on course for 2.3 to 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100—still dangerously high, but far lower than the 5 degrees Celsius projected just a decade ago. The economic motivations behind China’s leadership are clear, but their impact is undeniable. As Li Shuo, director of the China climate hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, observed, “China is going to, over time, create a new narrative and be a much more important driver for global climate action.”
Europe, too, is adapting to the changing dynamics. The European Union’s new carbon border tax, set to take effect in January 2026, will levy tariffs on imports from outside the bloc. Once expected to trigger conflict with the U.S., the measure is now proceeding with little resistance, as America recedes from its traditional leadership role. African nations, meanwhile, are asserting themselves with a $50 billion pledge to support at least 1,000 locally led climate solutions by 2030.
Yet, the COP30 agreement’s inclusion of language against unilateral trade measures—such as tariffs—was a clear sign of China’s growing influence in climate negotiations. With the U.S. absent, China was able to “force this issue on the agenda,” according to Li Shuo, ensuring that the final decision explicitly discouraged trade restrictions that could hinder the global energy transition.
Despite these shifts, many observers remain skeptical about the ability of governments and corporations to act decisively and in time. The post-COP analysis argues that the real hope for meaningful change lies in radical democracy, local autonomy, and biocultural approaches that transcend nation-state boundaries. Examples abound: Indigenous resistance to fossil fuel expansion in North America has prevented greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to a quarter of the annual output of the U.S. and Canada, while thousands of ‘territories of life’ worldwide demonstrate that communities can be the most effective stewards of ecosystems.
As the world navigates this new era—marked by U.S. retreat, Chinese industrial leadership, and a surge in grassroots activism—the path forward remains uncertain. What is clear is that the old order is giving way to a more fragmented, but perhaps more dynamic, global response to the climate crisis.
