By Mathew Carr

Nov. 8-10, 2024 — The violent political and economic culture across much of the world stems from a deep belief among the ruling classes of “game theory” — where parties in a negotiation reckon it’s better to not cooperate because, if you do that, you might end up being played for a “sucker.”

With the election of Mr Donald Trump for a second term as president starting next year, the United States has played the other 96% of the world population, and it’s a winning strategy so far.

It’s pretty much making more shit-tons of profit from fossil fuels than ever before, as the world burns.

Now, America’s brutal climate-negotiator in chief Mr Trump is back in the big seat, the world really is screwed, right?

Climate talks at the United Nations level in Azerbaijan starting next week now seem even more hopeless.

Europe arguably has not helped by seeking to impose tariffs over the next few years on certain imports from countries that don’t implement the “correct” climate policies — something called a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). (America does not have such a correct policy.)

Trump arguably has a decent mandate to impose tariffs and walls at the borders of the United States.

This makes suckers of everyone seeking to make a buck exporting stuff to the world’s richest nation.

South Africa, China, Brazil and India have come out fighting.

“Unilateral trade-restrictive measures” are going to hurt us badly, they effectively said in their statement published today (and linked immediately above), a missive designed to spur more togetherness at the climate negotiations next week.

They pushed for “all partners to strive for cooperative solutions and partnerships for stimulating the production and trade access for sustainable goods and services.”

You would think the violent storms in Spain (which appear to match the violent wars) would encourage coordination.

Yet it’s one step forward and then a huge leap backwards over the past three decades.

The election of Trump seems to be one of those jumps in the wrong direction.

So while the talks are now complicated by the reappearance of “The Art of the Deal” author Trump, there is reason for hope, according to several negotiators I heard from, including Dirk Forrister, a lobbyist for carbon markets and former envoy for President Bill Clinton.

Trust is indeed at a low point, he told me last week by phone.

Also, conservatives generally believe in markets’ ability to drive change and Trump’s theoretical control of congress means the USA has no excuse to do something more ambitious legislatively on climate protection (if it sincerely wants to).

At the moment most emitters of GHG in the USA pay little by way of a carbon price.

The 10 year stalemate stems from rich countries wanting to pay poorer ones via markets while “emerging” countries want direct climate compensation.

“In some senses, countries have been talking past each other. And I do think that from what we hear in the informal discussions that have happened this year, there’s been improved understanding about, you know, motivations ….and … possible structures that can achieve the transparency that everybody wants.”

That transparency can restore trust, something that’s sorely needed … in a world of suckers.

Europe has been played as a sucker as it has cut emissions a lot vs the US.

It planned the CBAM to end its suckerdom. The CBAM links access to EU markets to climate action.

In response to questions I sent…a person familiar with the stance of the European Union said:

• The CBAM is the EU’s tool to put a fair price on the carbon emitted during the production of carbon intensive goods that are entering the EU, and to encourage cleaner industrial production in non-EU countries.
• CBAM is a climate-oriented, environmental policy tool. It ensures that carbon pricing in the EU does not simply move emissions elsewhere. It therefore supports climate mitigation efforts in the EU and at global level.
• CBAM does not target countries. It applies to specific goods, based on their carbon content and not on their country of origin.

There’s still a chance the world’s envoys will fully start a new UN carbon market under article 6.4 of the Paris climate deal this month, Forrister said. But it’s an outside chance.

The EU, US, China, India, etc (all countries) need to agree a system that solves not only how climate finance is provided, but one that delivers an acceptable sort of climate justice.

Anti-woke, anti globalist?

Trump’s anti-woke, anti-globalist agenda does not necessarily have to make suckers of the world, yet again.

Those afraid of UN regulation can use bilateral markets instead, under article 6.2 of the Paris deal, Forrister said. That will protect their sovereignty.

A key debate in Baku will be how to track emission reductions (known as internationally transferred mitigation outcomes or ITMOS) around the world. These reductions need to be held in registries on the article 6 side but also overall for a record on which country is doing most to cut the output of greenhouse gas (known as the global stocktake).

Forrister says the article 6 (cooperation system) is key because of the private sector’s financial firepower:

It can, along with debt, provide the extra $2 trillion a year needed for clean energy. It can allow nations to retain control while giving up some standard setting power to the UN. But only sometimes.

Forrister: “The UN can be helpful on the transparency front in assisting countries that … want access to a registry. But it doesn’t need to be a registry where the UN then tells them what can and cannot come into that registry — that would be a national decision.

“So I do think that this, this balance of what’s done at a national level versus what’s done at a UN level is important — to get that right.

“And for the UN to do …the (article) 6.4 mechanism (a new global carbon market) … but to be more like a facilitator, enabler on the (article) 6.2 side, where it’s it’s not providing the transfer.

It’s “assisting with the transparency function, but it’s not trying to get into the more substantive quality decisions — that would be left at a national level.” (For 6.2)

While this debate seems arcane Trump’s anti UN rhetoric makes it important.

Forrister says he hopes the Baku climate talks can “land” on the notion that national sovereignty prevails.

This post informs on Article 6:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anna-lerner-nesbitt-0569111_cop29-baku-article6-activity-7261290477029572608-Nd7T?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

Just how bad could Mr Trump be?

Forrister: “I hope that there’s kind of a clean energy, you know, that there’s some kind of a clean energy priority that comes out. You know, as they really think through, what do they want to do? Last time around, it didn’t go that way.

“They’re adding tariffs on the solutions coming in, solar panels, etc. But all of this is a big question mark. We don’t really know what, specifically … what type of tariffs Trump has in mind this time, but we know he has tariffs in mind.”

So anti—cooperation Mr Trump seems an unlikely collaborator…yet his stance is probably just an “art of the deal” negotiation stance.

He will refuse to appear cooperative and at some point he will do the deal and BE cooperative because the temperatures are rising surprisingly fast and he does not want America isolated (while pretending that is not a risk).

Yet as I mentioned earlier there is still a big question of non-market climate money — cash from rich countries that have mostly caused the climate crisis for less-wealthy ones — and that seems the priority this month at the UN.

I think this is a red herring. This negotiation is designed to cause tension in Baku and make Article 6 fail again…probably.

Article 6 is where the real development money will flow. I was reporting it daily during the height of the Kyoto markets in the early 2000s.

Carbon markets work.

The UN leadership (dominated by US-friendly appointments?) is failing by not pushing Article 6 harder. I understand it needs to listen to the emerging countries but the big money is only going to come via carbon markets or debt. Surely markets are better because competitive tension will keep economic costs lower.

Importantly the biggest corporations want it.

High Integrity Carbon Markets From Baku Climate Talks Seen Possible After Shameful Delay + CarrZee (9)

The US is the world’s biggest oil producer and it’s putting its own interests ahead of the world’s basic collaborative needs.

That might change this month.

Note:

There’s a very telling move by Trump’s team in the past few days, if it’s true, against someone who decided earlier this year to cooperate with Mr Trump instead of fighting him:

Robert F Kennedy, an environmentalist and scion of the famed American political family ….who encouraged his supporters to vote for Trump instead of voting for himself.

Ie …. Kennedy pulled out of the race to support Trump.

RFK gave Trump enormous credibility that he did not previously have.

Has RFK been played for a sucker … see below ?

Are you kidding me with this?
'Advisors close to Trump' are saying RFK is toast.
From Telegraph —–> pic.twitter.com/Q2rwBMfPKJ

— Shannon Joy (@ShannonJoyRadio) November 7, 2024

RFK Jr. addresses comments from Trump’s transition team co-chair, Howard Lutnick, who said RFK is not getting a job as leader of HHS.

“That is not true. The campaign has walked back those statements by Howard Lutnick, and he himself has disavowed those statements.”

“I wanna be… pic.twitter.com/r44x8Bteqa

— End Tribalism in Politics (@EndTribalism) November 4, 2024

(More to come; adds EU comment)