Tuesday, 20 January 2026
Trump ditches UN climate treaty as he moves to dismantle America’s climate protections
On Jan. 7, 2026, President Donald Trump declared that he would officially pull the United States out of the world’s most important global treaty for combating climate change. He said it was because the treaty ran “contrary to the interests of the United States.”
His order didn’t say which U.S. interests he had in mind.
Americans had just seen a year of widespread flooding from extreme weather across the U.S. Deadly wildfires had burned thousands of homes in the nation’s second-largest metro area, and 2025 had been the second- or third-hottest year globally on record. Insurers are no longer willing to insure homes in many areas of the country because of the rising risks, and they are raising prices in many others.
For decades, evidence has shown that increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, largely from burning fossil fuels, are raising global temperatures and influencing sea level rise, storms and wildfires.
The climate treaty – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – was created to bring the world together to find ways to lower those risks.
Trump’s order to now pull the U.S. out of that treaty adds to a growing list of moves by the admnistration to dismantle U.S. efforts to combat climate change, despite the risks. Many of those moves, and there have been dozens, have flown under the public radar.
Why this climate treaty matters
A year into the second Trump administration, you might wonder: What’s the big deal with the U.S. leaving the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change now?
After all, the Trump administration has been ignoring the UNFCCC since taking office in January. The administration moved to stop collecting and reporting corporate greenhouse gas emissions data required under the treaty. It canceled U.S. scientists’ involvement in international research. One of Trump’s first acts of his second term was to start the process of pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement. Trump made similar moves in his first term, but the U.S. returned to the Paris agreement after he left office.
This action is different. It vacates an actual treaty that was ratified by the U.S. Senate in October 1992 and signed by President George H.W. Bush.
America’s ratification that year broke a logjam of inaction by nations that had signed the agreement but were wary about actually ratifying it as a legal document. Once the U.S. ratified it, other countries followed, and the treaty entered into force on March 21, 1994.
The U.S. was a global leader on climate change for years. Not anymore.
Chipping away at climate policy
With the flurry of headlines about the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, renewed threats to seize Greenland, persistent high prices, immigration arrests, ICE and Border Patrol shootings, the Epstein files and the fight over ending health care subsidies, important news from other critical areas that affect public welfare has been overlooked for months.
Two climate-related decisions did dominate a few news cycles in 2025. The Environmental Protection Agency announced its intention to rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding, a legal determination that certain greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and welfare that became the foundation of federal climate laws. There are indications that the move to rescind the finding could be finalized soon – the EPA sent its final draft rule to the White House for review in early January 2026. And the Department of Energy released a misinformed climate assessment authored by five handpicked climate skeptics.
Both moves drew condemnation from scientists, but that news was quickly overwhelmed by concern about a government shutdown and continuing science funding cuts and layoffs.
This chipping away at climate policy continued to accelerate at the end of 2025 with six more significant actions that went largely unnoticed.
Three could harm efforts to slow climate change:
- The Trump administration moved to weaken vehicle emissions standards on Dec. 3. Instead of raising the industry average for cars and light trucks vehicles to 50 miles per gallon by 2031, as planned, the standard would rise to about 34.5 miles per gallon by 2031.
- On Dec. 11, the U.S. joined Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia to block part of a U.N. environment report that would have called for phasing out fossil fuels.
- Eleven days later, the U.S. Department of the Interior jeopardized billions of dollars of U.S. investment in clean energy by pausing the leases of five East Coast offshore wind farms.
Three other moves by the administration shot arrows at the heart of climate science:
- The EPA rewrote its webpage about the causes of climate change to remove human influences, including burning fossil fuels – the primary cause of global warming. That occurred on Dec. 5.
- On Dec. 17, Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, announced plans to shut down the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a world-recognized leader in earth system science.
- A week later, the administration invited the authors of the discredited Department of Energy climate report to write the next U.S. National Climate Assessment, the latest in a widely used series of reports mandated by Congress to assess the nation’s climate risks.
Fossil fuels at any cost
In early January 2025, the United States had reestablished itself as a world leader in climate science and was still working domestically and internationally to combat climate risks.
A year later, the U.S. government has abdicated both roles and is taking actions that will increase the likelihood of catastrophic climate-driven disasters and magnify their consequences by dismantling certain forecasting and warning systems and tearing apart programs that helped Americans recover from disasters, including targeting the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
To my mind, as a scholar of both environmental studies and economics, the administration’s moves enunciated clearly its strategy to discredit concerns about climate change, at the same time it promotes greater production of fossil fuels. It’s “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” with little consideration for what’s at risk.
Trump’s repudiation of the UNFCCC could give countries around the world cover to pull back their own efforts to fight a global problem if they decide it is not in their myopic “best interest.” So far, the other countries have stayed in both that treaty and the Paris climate agreement. However, many countries’ promises to protect the planet for future generations were weaker in 2025 than hoped.
The U.S. pullout may also leave the Trump administration at a disadvantage: The U.S. will no longer have a formal voice in the global forum where climate policies are debated, one where China has been gaining influence since Trump returned to the presidency.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Trump Links His Push for Greenland to Not Winning Nobel Peace Prize: New York Times
In a text, President Trump told Norway’s prime minister that he no longer felt obliged to “think purely of Peace” and that the U.S. needed the island for global security.
President Trump is now claiming that one reason he is pushing to acquire Greenland is that he didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize, according to a text message he sent to Norway’s prime minister over the weekend.
Jonas Gahr Store, Norway’s leader, received the text message on Sunday, an official in the prime minister’s office said on Monday.
“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Mr. Trump wrote in the message, which was first published by PBS.
Mr. Trump also questioned Denmark’s claim to Greenland, saying, “There are no written documents,” and adding, “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you!”
The tensions over Greenland have sharply escalated in the last week, and the message injected a new level of uncertainty into Mr. Trump’s thinking and his campaign to gain control of the island.
Greenland has been part of the Danish Kingdom for more than 300 years, and world leaders have condemned Mr. Trump’s insistence that the United States take over the territory, a giant icebound island in the Arctic region.
According to copies of the messages provided by the Norwegian prime minister’s office, Mr. Trump’s message was a response to one that Mr. Store sent Mr. Trump on Sunday. It was co-signed by the president of Finland, Alexander Stubb, a leader with whom Mr. Trump is close.
The European leaders asked to speak to Mr. Trump about Greenland and his threat of using tariffs to pressure Denmark into selling it, which Denmark has refused to do. They asked for a phone call and struck a collaborative tone, writing, “We believe we all should work to take this down and de-escalate — so much is happening around us where we need to stand together.”
After Mr. Trump’s response, Mr. Store said in a statement, “As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, I have on several occasions clearly explained to Trump what is well known, namely that it is an independent Nobel Committee, and not the Norwegian government, that awards the prize,” Mr. Store said.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly challenged Denmark’s claims to Greenland, but in decades-old agreements that the United States has signed with Denmark, the United States has recognized Denmark’s close connection to the island.
A 2004 amendment to an older defense pact between Denmark and the United States, which grants the United States broad military access, explicitly recognizes Greenland as “an equal part of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
And
in 1916, Denmark sold what are now the U.S. Virgin Islands to the
United States for $25 million in gold. In the treaty for that deal, a
clause reads, “The United States of America will not object to the
Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to
the whole of Greenland.”
In the past year, as Mr. Trump has
repeatedly vowed to “get” Greenland, Denmark has repeatedly rebuffed
him. Denmark’s position is that it does not have the authority to sell
the self-governing territory and that Greenland’s 57,000 inhabitants
will decide their own fate. Polls and interviews show that an
overwhelming majority of Greenlanders strongly oppose joining the United
States.
On Saturday, Greenlanders
staged the biggest protest of recent months. Hundreds marched through
the snowy streets of Nuuk, the capital, chanting, “No means no,”
“Greenland is already great” and “Yankee, go home!”
In the past
few days, Denmark and other European countries have sent more military
forces to the island. Small groups of Danish soldiers dressed in green
camouflage and dark woolen hats have been walking through downtown Nuuk.
Beyond the harbor, a 200-foot-long Danish warship capable of breaking
through ice has been patrolling the shoreline.
A much-anticipated three-way meeting last week of the United States, Denmark and Greenland, hosted by Vice President JD Vance in Washington, did not produce any breakthroughs and seemed to instead create misunderstandings.
It was the first time Greenland had been included in such high-level discussions, and the Danish and Greenlandic officials left saying that a working group had been formed to explore possibilities for a solution. But the Trump administration said afterwards that the two sides would begin “technical talks on the acquisition of Greenland,” a statement that raised even more concern in Greenland, in Denmark and across Europe.
Patrick Kingsley, Jeanna Smialek and Steven Erlanger contributed reporting.
Jeffrey Gettleman is an international correspondent based in London covering global events. He has worked for The Times for more than 20 years.
A version of this article appears in print on Jan. 20, 2026 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Links Failed Bid For a Nobel Peace Prize To His Greenland Push. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
Trump pulls out of UN climate agreement, 66 bodies deemed 'contrary' to US interests
"United States President Donald Trump is withdrawing the US from a foundational climate treaty and the world's leading global warming assessment body, as part of a sweeping exit from the United Nations system, the White House announced on Wednesday.
A total of 66 international organisations — comprised of "35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities" — were named in a White House memorandum as being "contrary to US national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty".
Most notable among them is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the parent treaty underpinning all major international climate agreements." SBS NEWS
Monday, 29 December 2025
"Mark Carney Claims Fossil Fuel Expansion Is ‘Canada Strong,’ but U.S. Investors Get the Profits" Credit DeSmog
New data show American capital now controls most of Canada’s
oil and gas sector while jobs vanish, royalties lag, and billions flow
south.
"Prime Minister Mark Carney has been playing up protecting Canada’s energy sovereignty by expanding fossil fuel extraction. But who owns the oil patch?
The reality is that U.S. capital controls the majority of oil and gas companies operating in Canada and that American ownership of the Canadian oil resources is increasing. Recent reporting from Oilprice.com shows that U.S. equity owns 59 percent of Canadian fossil fuel companies, up from 56 percent in 2024. Over the same period, Canadian ownership declined from 37 percent to 34 percent. Is this what Canada Strong looks like?
The situation is even more stark for the four largest Canadian bitumen producers, according to a recent report from the nonprofit group Canadians for Tax Fairness. Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil, and Suncor Energy are 73 percent foreign-owned, and 60 percent U.S.-owned, the report shows. Canadian investors control only 27 percent of these “Big Four” sands giants.
These companies raked in $131.6 billion in profits between 2021 and 2024 and paid out almost $80 billion of this windfall to foreign shareholder buyback and dividends. This is considerably more than the $60 billion paid over the same period to the Albertan owners of the resource through provincial bitumen royalties. Since the majority of shareholders are outside Alberta, $49.3 billion of buyback and dividend revenue ended up in the pockets of U.S. investors." Credit: DeSmog
Friday, 5 December 2025
"Labour Group Slams Lord Glasman Over Climate Denial Lecture" DeSmog
"An influential Labour peer has been criticised for being the star speaker at the UK’s main climate science denial group, which says carbon emissions are a “benefit to the planet”.
Lord Maurice Glasman, founder of the conservative ‘Blue Labour’ faction of the Labour Party, delivered the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s (GWPF) annual lecture on Monday, a speech typically given by conservative figures and climate science deniers.
Glasman has in recent weeks advised Morgan McSweeney, chief of staff to Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
“It is important to remember that the UK is not America,” Paul McNamee, director of the Labour Climate and Environment Forum (LCEF), told DeSmog.
“The Labour government continues to benefit from majority support for ambitious climate action. British people know that this ambition brings energy security, lower bills, a future for their grand-kids, and investment into some of the fastest growing areas of the UK economy.”
McNamee added: “Lord Glasman would know this if he spent less time at
Trump inaugurations and with right-wing campaign groups, and more time
in the British communities he claims to speak on behalf of.”" DeSmog
Wednesday, 2 July 2025
Amid Brutal Heat Wave, Officials Stress Health Risks of Hot Nights
Excerpt : "Much of the United States is baking amid an unusually severe June heat wave, with more than 150 million people under some sort of heat advisory. The unrelenting heat wave started in the Mountain West over the weekend and has since descended upon the Midwestern and Eastern U.S., where high humidity is making temperatures topping 100 degrees Fahrenheit feel even hotter.
Even at night, people can’t escape the unforgiving heat, which poses a particularly high health risk.
The level and duration of the heat is rare for this time of year “with little to no overnight relief, and affects anyone without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration,” the National Weather Service said in an advisory Monday morning.
During a heat wave, it is crucial for people to cool down at night to reduce their core body temperature and reduce the physiological burden put on them during long, sizzling days. But a growing body of research shows that hot nights are becoming more common with climate change—and not just during a heat wave. " By Kiley Price, From Inside Climate News
Saturday, 20 April 2024
Flood in Oman due to severe rains. Flooding in Arabian Peninsula ...
"Both Oman and the UAE, which hosted last year's COP28 UN climate talks, have previously warned that global warming is likely to lead to more flooding.
Friederike Otto, a leader in the field of assessing the role of climate change on specific extreme weather events, said it was likely that global warming played a part in this week's rain.
"It
is highly likely that the deadly and destructive rain in Oman and Dubai
was made heavier by human-caused climate change," said Ms Otto, of the
Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London." ABC
Wednesday, 27 March 2024
Carbon credit whistleblower says system still 'failing': RN Breakfast
"The academic who blew the whistle on Australia's carbon credit scheme
- sparking an independent review - has released new research showing
"damning results". Professor Andrew Macintosh says the research confirms
the scheme isn't removing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Human-induced regeneration counts for almost a third of all carbon credit projects but Professor Macintosh says it's "failing", despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in credits."
Monday, 18 March 2024
Wood Pellet Giant Drax Targets California Forests: Excerpt
"Plans for two industrial pellet plants would increase carbon emissions and hurt the health of rural communities, campaigners warn.
The wood pellets Drax produces are treated as “carbon neutral” under international accounting rules, based on an assumption that new-growth trees will capture the carbon lost by wood burnt for electricity. But scientists and campaigners have long disputed these claims.
A 2021 study from the European Academies Science Advisory Council concluded that burning wood for energy “is not effective in mitigating climate change and may even increase the risk of dangerous climate change.” A power station operated by Drax in the UK generates 8 percent of the UK’s “renewable” electricity, but is also the single largest emitter of carbon dioxide.
Golden State Natural Resources claims its forest management techniques reduce the risk of wildfires — a claim which has also been disputed by campaigners — and that it maintains “stringent guardrails” to ensure the sourcing of materials for pellets is sustainable. Drax also says its pellets are made from “sustainable biomass” generated from low-grade roundwood, sawmill residues, and forest residues — although several investigations have found instances of the company using primary forest materials.
https://www.desmog.com/2024/03/04/wood-pellet-giant-drax-targets-california-forests/
Michael Mann Wins $1 Million Verdict In Defamation Trial
"Michael Mann Wins $1 Million Verdict In Defamation Trial
Victory over climate deniers sends a strong message in defense of climate science and scientists.
"In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.
In a unanimous decision, jurors agreed that both Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann in blog posts that compared Mann to convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky, former assistant football coach at Penn State University. They announced that Simberg will pay $1,000 in punitive damages and Steyn will pay the larger $1 million.
Standing in front of the courthouse smiling with his legal team after the verdict was read, Mann told DeSmog that he trusted the jury to see through the “smoke and mirrors” that the defense used during the trial.
“One million dollars in punitive damages makes a statement,” he said in an exclusive interview. “This is about the defense of science against scurrilous attacks, and dishonest efforts to undermine scientists who are just trying to do our job.”
Mann also noted that the trial was about defamatory statements made in an effort to discredit scientists “whose findings might prove inconvenient to certain ideologically driven individuals and outlets.”
“It’s about the integrity of the science and making sure that bad actors aren’t allowed to make false and defamatory statements about scientists in their effort to advance an agenda,” he added.
Peter Fontaine, one of Mann’s lawyers, told DeSmog he was “thrilled with the outcome.”"
https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/08/michael-mann-wins-defamation-trial-climate-deniers-rand-simberg-mark-steyn/
Saturday, 9 December 2023
Climate Choir Melbourne supporting Extinction Rebellion
Climate Choir Melbourne supporting Extinction Rebellion protestors at their sit down on the busiest intersection in Melbourne City, Australia. The police were very restrained. Are they in agreement with the protestors? They do have family of their own.
Thursday, 23 November 2023
Well done humans!!!!
Congratulations humanity! For the first time in recorded history we have breached 2C above preindustrial levels! (Glacecakes Tumblr)
Tuesday, 23 May 2023
BBC News: Global warming set to break key 1.5C limit for first time
"Our overheating world is likely to break a key temperature limit for the first time over the next few years, scientists predict.
Researchers say there's now a 66% chance we will pass the 1.5C global warming threshold between now and 2027.
The chances are rising due to emissions from human activities and a likely El Niño weather pattern later this year.
If the world passes the limit, scientists stress the breach, while worrying, will likely be temporary.
Hitting the threshold would mean the world is 1.5C warmer than it was during the second half of the 19th Century, before fossil fuel emissions from industrialisation really began to ramp up.
And breaking the limit even for just one year is a worrying sign that warming is accelerating and not slowing down.
The 1.5C figure has become a symbol of global climate change negotiations. Countries agreed to "pursue efforts" to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C under the 2015 Paris agreement.
Going over 1.5C every year for a decade or two would see far greater impacts of warming, such as longer heatwaves, more intense storms and wildfires.
But passing the level in one of the next few years would not mean that the Paris limit had been broken. Scientists say there is still time to restrict global warming by cutting emissions sharply.
Since 2020 the World Meteorological Organisation has been giving an estimate of the chances of the world breaking the 1.5C threshold in any one year.
Back then they predicted there was less than a 20% chance of breaking 1.5C in the five years ahead.
By last year this had increased to 50%, and now it's jumped to 66%, which the scientists say means it's "more likely than not.""
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)