–Powerful ’emerging’ nations line up at June climate talks against North American, EU attempts to protect flawed global trade system; US and China meet

Reporting and opinion by Mathew Carr

June 9, 2025 — A powerful group of countries including China and India continue to call out protectionist trade policy and climate-shift delay tactics by the EU and North America.

The “intersessional” UN climate meeting runs June 16-26 in Bonn.

The Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group, together with many other developing countries, “is of the view that UNFCCC Parties are obligated to send a clear and strong signal of commitment to multilateralism and global cooperation as the most effective and just manner to respond to climate change and consider concerns with unilateral climate change-related trade-restrictive measures based on climate objectives, while calling on all partners to strive for cooperative solutions and partnerships for stimulating the production and trade access for sustainable goods and services in line with existing legal provisions.” (UNFCCC doc see below)

The countries repeated their claim planned carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMS are a type of tariff) go against international law and treaties requiring compliance with multilateral rules …they set out 10 laws that the CBAMS breach (SEE BELOW).

The LMDC group usually includes China and India…yet membership moves around a bit.

See doc here

The picture presented by Bolivia seeks a nicer world than the “economic dominance” mantra of President Trump.

Trade talks are slated for later today in London between the US and China…which could in theory bode well. It’s also good that Trump is now talking about the “complicated” nature of the trade talks rather than just lashing out.

The frustrating thing is …that interests are aligning between “the west” and emerging markets, so a deal is doable.

If ‘libtards’ in Mark Carney’s Canadian government, climate skeptics like Trump’s administration and China start agreeing, the world stands a chance

“Libtard” is an extremely rude description of people who want the whole world to get ahead, instead of just wealthy people.

I’m using it because it’s such a vivid expression.

When it comes to free markets, Canada’s Liberals and Trump’s libertarians are actually quite close. And China has become fond of the wealth it’s generated by supplying America and Europe’s overconsumption.

If the west consumes less dirty stuff and the emerging countries consume more clean stuff…the trade imbalances even out in a way that helps deal with inequality AND a better trade system might help save the climate.

The libtard word indicates that woke folks are somehow “retarded” because of their fair-minded attitude — one that favours justice for the vulnerable people, across the earth.

According to President Donald Trump’s followers online, the poster boy of libtardom is Mark Carney, Canada’s new prime minister.

Carney, like Trump, is arguably a deeply flawed character (as we all are, more or less).

A former Goldman Sachs banker and head of reserve banks in Canada and the UK, he allowed inflation to be used as a weapon against the people the past two decades. He might argue he was initially against the use of massive money printing, which largely caused the global inflation and enriched the 0.1% at the expense of everyone else.

Trump, who appears to be accepting a $400 million luxury jetliner from huge natural-gas producer Qatar, seems hell bent on helping big business and billionaires …and he seems keen to rig markets for his mates, while pretending to be helping the common human across the USA.

He wants to “dominate” everything, especially the libtards. Yet, perhaps Mr Trump’s position is simply a negotiation stance.

On one reading, Mr Trump was correct when he said America is taking over Canada. Carney’s status as a banker and now powerful politician seems to have given him huge influence to help create a new trade deal for the Americas … and potentially beyond.

In a lot of ways, Goldman Sachs represents the worst of reckless American money grubbing …and now it directly “controls” a big slice of the western hemisphere via its alumni.

On another reading, Carney might help North America save the day.

The discrepancy between Trump and Carney is the latter’s understanding of climate science, and relatedly, climate justice, banking and finance …as well as global markets, market risk.

In June 2015, about six months before the Paris climate deal was struck, Carney said this as he explained the scale of the climate change risk for the world and for markets:

“Stress testing built off better disclosure (of climate risks by companies) and with the carbon-price corridor, could act as a time machine shining light not just on today’s risk, but on those that might otherwise lurk in the darkness to come.”

The Darkness

Ten years later, we are deep into that darkness…with Trump sending troops into California over the weekend in a bid to distract from the very real (or apparently real) risk of World War III starting in Europe.

I will later get into what the darkness means for all of us, but first let’s break down what Carney said.

Stress testing

The past 10 years has been the era of stress tests — ie testing what will happen if markets/economies/systems are put under the stress of rapid climate change and other scenarios. 

Covid, wars, pandemics, etc

Carney’s speech was given at an event hosted by Lloyds of London, arguably the world’s most important insurance group. (It’s quirky yet super important because it helps set global insurance rates[— I used to edit an insurance news publication.])

Carney was flagging that the possibility of better transparency from companies about disclosure of how their investment plans will boost or erode emissions …he was saying better markets would help insurers and trading capitalists set fees and prices to more accurately protect the world from wildfires, floods and droughts.

Carbon corridor

A carbon corridor would price heat-trapping emissions in a band, from say $50-$100 ton, rising from now….perhaps to levels double or triple those figures in 2030-2035.

Canada adopted this policy, but it’s been eroded and demonised by bad politics the past decade.

Why these two things — disclosure of expected emissions and the carbon corridor (minimum and maximum carbon prices) — would work as a time machine …is a key thought experiment few seem to understand.

Most markets have futures contracts traded in markets all the time during working hours… ie you can trade the expected price of crude oil next month (June 2025) and theoretically in 10 years (June 2035)

To be sure, ICE exchange will give me $65.64 a barrel for Aug. 2025 and $66.65 for Dec. 2030, according to its website, on June 9.

If we think we know or can bet on important prices in December 2030, then we can know what that month looks like, risk wise. That’s what Carney meant, perhaps, by a “time machine”.

But in the past 10 years the time machine has not been built….superficially at least. These markets are still only trade a few years out. That’s not helping cut risks in 2030. And the reason for that is governments have failed to inject certainty and long-term rules because they all selfishly want to “dominate.” Or at least the USA does. New globalish market rules cannot to agreed while there is so much mistrust and selfishness.

I’m not talking about communism here. I’m talking about market rules that REQUIRE competitive tension and climate damage in market prices. They will not only erode inflation …they will see clean tech outcompete dirty tech.

There is no competitive tension in the market for crude oil because it it completely rigged by OPEC+. Instead of competing, Saudi Arabia (part of the LMGC) cuts supply to keep prices high, something that’s unlawful in most markets.

But the corrupt and deadly crude market has been normalised by corrupt media such as my previous shop Bloomberg LP, the news service for the rich.

Yet …now better, cleaner technology exists and blockchain can help cut risks further by ensuring no one cheats. Ie, futures markets can get better and longer dated, considerably so.

Climate, trade and market cheating has been rife for decades. Let’s hope that changes, starting this week.

The darkness II

With Greta Thunberg trying to open a humanitarian corridor in the Med for Gaza victims, I expected I might wake up to her placed in shackles by Israel special forces while I slept last night (Monday morning London time).

Apologies, Greta. She was “arrested” under some jurisdiction that Israel just assumed out of thin air …yet she was apparently spared the shackles and given a sandwich.

Note

9am Monday morning London time

Not sure on what authority Israel captured Greta’s ship.

Telegraph:

https://apple.news/AB-rjgiWYSbmAZL2oqqlUSw

https://x.com/rimahas/status/1931876190463447434?s=46&t=4GXQezLCTz4c9vehe5x4tw

The last image of the crew. pic.twitter.com/PkYQSLa3Ri

— Rima Hassan (@RimaHas) June 9, 2025

1

FCCC/CP/1996/2, at https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/02_0.pdf

2

See, i.e., European Commission, Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (28 March 2025), at https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en

3

United Kingdom, HM Treasury – Department of Energy Security and Net Zero, Factsheet: UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (18 December 2023), at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/addressing-carbon-leakage-risk-to-supportdecarbonisation/outcome/factsheet-uk-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism and Carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM): Policy update (24 April 2025), at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-legislation-carbon-border-adjustmentmechanism/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-cbam-policy-update

4

Liberal Party of Canada, Canada Strong: Mark Carney’s Plan (2025), at https://liberal.ca/cstrong/build/#building-a-clean-economy, Jennifer L, Mark Carney’s Climate Strategy: Balancing Carbon Policy, Trade, and Energy Security (Carbon Credits, 30 April 2025), at https://carboncredits.com/mark-carneys-climate-strategy-balancing-carbon-policy-trade-and-energysecurity/, and CDR, Canadian PM proposes CBAM, expanded carbon removal policies (Quantum Commodity Intelligence, 22 April 2025), at https://www.qcintel.com/carbon/article/canadian-pmproposes-cbam-expanded-carbon-removal-policies-39817.html ;

10 ways the west is breaking the law on international trade

Like-Minded group of Developing Countries: Concerning trends towards unilateralism, trade protectionism and fragmentation of international cooperation jeopardizes trust and, consequently, ambitious climate action. In order to reverse such trends, the international community must reiterate its firm commitment to contributing to an international environment that is conducive to sustainable development and to inclusive and equitable global decision-making processes that are effectively representative of humanity’s collective development aspirations, with a view to shared prosperity. 

Parties should seek to engage in good faith to address concerns with unilateral climate change-related trade-restrictive measures based on alleged climate objectives. Parties should also reiterate opposition to the politicization of climate change issues and all forms of unilateralism and protectionism, recognizing that unilateral measures with negative cross border impacts violate the objectives and principles of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, deviate from the visions as set out in subsequent decisions, and seriously undermine multilateral cooperation and the ability of the concerned countries to combat climate change, and increase the cost of global climate action and cooperation. 

Parties should also collectively oppose and avoid any measures to restrict trade and investment and setting up new green trade barriers, such as unilateral carbon border adjustment measures and due diligence requirements, with the pretext of addressing climate change, which are incompatible with multilateral rules and the cornerstone principles of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, i.e., equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), in the light of different national circumstances. Parties should also, in line with the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, remedy unilateral measures which have negative cross border impacts. 

The following relevant legal provisions provide the basis for this proposal: 

ONE

Article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” 

TWO

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 11: “States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.” 

THREE

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 12: “States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.” 

FOUR

Article 3.5 of the UNFCCC: “The Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all Parties, particularly developing country Parties, thus enabling them better to address the problems of climate change. Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.” 

FIVE

Article 2.3 of the Kyoto Protocol: “The Parties included in Annex I shall strive to implement policies and measures under this Article in such a way as to minimize adverse effects, including the adverse effects of climate change, effects on international trade, and social, environmental and economic impacts on other Parties, especially developing country Parties and in particular those identified in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Convention, taking into account Article 3 of the Convention. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol may take further action, as appropriate, to promote the implementation of the provisions of this paragraph.” 

SIX

Article 3.14 of the Kyoto Protocol: “Each Party included in Annex I shall strive to implement the commitments mentioned in paragraph 1 above in such a way as to minimize adverse social, environmental and economic impacts on developing country Parties ….. consider what actions are necessary to minimize the adverse effects of climate change and/or the impacts of response measures on Parties referred to in those paragraphs.” 

SEVEN

Article 4.15 of Paris Agreement: “Parties shall take into consideration in the implementation of this Agreement the concerns of Parties with economies most affected by the impacts of response measures, particularly developing country Parties.” 

EIGHT

Para 154, Decision 1/CMA.5 – Outcome of the first global stocktake: “Recognizes that Parties should cooperate on promoting a supportive and open international economic system aimed at achieving sustainable economic growth and development in all countries and thus enabling them to better to address the problems of climate change, noting that measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.” 

NINE

UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1 (2015) – Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 

30. States are strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries. 

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, 2.b Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets 

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development, Trade, 17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open, nondiscriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system 

TEN

United Nations Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact, and Declaration on Future Generations: 

Action 5. We will ensure that the multilateral trading system continues to be an engine for sustainable development 

CONCLUSION (REASONABLE ACCORDING TO CARRZEE):

We are committed to a rules-based, non-discriminatory, open, fair, inclusive, equitable and transparent multilateral trading system , with the World Trade Organization at its core. We underscore the importance of the multilateral trading system contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. We reiterate that States are strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying unilateral economic measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries.