Lead
California Gov. Gavin Newsom told the Associated Press in Belem, Brazil, that the United States risks ceding economic and climate leadership by skipping the COP30 U.N. climate summit. Speaking on Nov. 11, 2025, Newsom called the federal absence “doubling down on stupid” and said it signals to the world that U.S. priorities have shifted away from the low-carbon transition. He argued that subnational actors — states and cities — are trying to fill the gap while other countries accelerate clean-energy investment. The result, he warned, could be lost manufacturing and supply-chain advantages to competitors such as China.
Key Takeaways
- The U.S. was one of four countries absent from COP30 in Belem; the others listed by organizers were Afghanistan, Myanmar and San Marino.
- Newsom, a Democrat considered a potential 2028 presidential contender, represented the highest-profile U.S. governor at the talks on Nov. 11, 2025.
- California has about 40 million residents and has warmed roughly 1.8°F (1°C) over the past 30 years, NOAA records show.
- Compared with 1995 levels, California receives nearly 7 inches (17.7 cm) less annual rainfall, per NOAA data cited in reporting.
- California aims for carbon neutrality by 2045 but is also expanding some oil production and keeping a nuclear plant running longer to meet growing electricity demand.
- Newsom said federal rollbacks of environmental rules and cuts to renewables subsidies risk handing economic advantage to countries investing in green infrastructure.
- White House communications pushed back with a statement criticizing Newsom’s stance and defending the administration’s energy policies.
Background
The COP30 meetings in Belem are part of annual U.N. climate negotiations that gather nearly 200 nations to advance goals set under the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Trump administration has repeatedly moved to unwind federal climate regulations and notified the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris framework, policies that have shifted official U.S. engagement on the international stage. That federal posture has produced a visible split: many states, cities and private actors have continued to pursue emissions reductions and clean-energy investments even as federal direction pulled back.
California has been a national leader on climate policy for years, setting aggressive targets on vehicle emissions, renewable procurement and building codes. At the same time, the state faces acute climate impacts — hotter temperatures, shifting precipitation and large wildfires — that have spurred both mitigation and resilience efforts. Those same pressures have created political and economic tensions at home, such as debates over energy costs, oil production and grid reliability as demand from data centers and advanced computing grows.
Main Event
In an interview on site, Newsom framed the U.S. no-show as a strategic mistake with economic consequences. He said the message sent by federal absence is that international partners and global markets “don’t matter,” and that other countries are seizing low-carbon investment opportunities. He singled out China as a competitor likely to reap industrial benefits if the United States falls behind in clean-energy manufacturing, supply chains and infrastructure.
Newsom stressed California’s dual role as both policymaker and climate frontline, citing the state’s warming trend, rainfall decline and recent destructive wildfires. He noted that California has pursued an ambitious path toward carbon neutrality by 2045 while also confronting the immediate realities of energy prices and reliability, which have prompted measures such as temporarily boosting local oil output and extending a nuclear plant’s operation.
The White House response, relayed through spokesperson Taylor Rogers, dismissed Newsom’s trip as political theater and defended federal deregulation and subsidy cuts as part of an “energy independence” agenda. Separately, observers at the summit — including European think-tank analysts — said it was constructive that U.S. governors and mayors were present even if the federal delegation was absent.
Analysis & Implications
Newsom’s comments crystallize a broader policy tension: whether U.S. competitiveness will hinge on near-term fossil-fuel advantages or on longer-term leadership in clean technology. If other countries scale manufacturing, build supply chains and secure first-mover advantages in green industries, the U.S. could face lost export markets and domestic job opportunities tied to those sectors. That risk is compounded by China’s coordinated industrial strategy and by recent investments across Europe and parts of the Middle East in renewables and related manufacturing capacity.
Federal deregulation advocates argue that lower compliance costs and increased fossil-fuel output produce cheaper energy and bolster short-term economic growth and energy security. But economists and trade analysts warn those gains can be offset if the U.S. misses out on the value-added stages of emerging clean-energy supply chains, such as battery production, electrolyzers, and renewable equipment manufacturing.
For California specifically, the tension is operational as well as political. Meeting carbon-neutral goals while ensuring affordable and reliable power imposes trade-offs: deploying more utility-scale solar and battery storage, extending nuclear plant life, and investing in grid modernization all carry costs and implementation challenges. The boom in data-center demand and artificial intelligence workloads further intensifies electricity needs, prompting policymakers to thread a narrow path between decarbonization and reliability.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | California | U.S. (selected) |
|---|---|---|
| Population (approx.) | 40 million | 335 million |
| Temperature change (past ~30 years) | +1.8°F (+1°C) | +~1.6°F (national avg., NOAA) |
| Rainfall change vs. 1995 | −~7 in (−17.7 cm) | Varies regionally |
| Carbon neutrality target | 2045 (state goal) | — (federal withdrawal from Paris Agreement as of prior administration) |
The table frames key indicators cited during the Belem interviews and helps separate state-level climate exposure and targets from national policy choices. NOAA temperature and precipitation records underpin the California figures reported at the summit. National averages mask large regional differences in warming and precipitation trends, which matters for policy design and infrastructure planning.
Reactions & Quotes
Officials and experts offered sharply different framings of the U.S. absence and its consequences. Below are representative comments with context.
“You don’t matter, we don’t care,” Newsom said, describing how he believes federal absence reads to international partners.
Gavin Newsom, Governor of California
Newsom used that formulation to underscore his claim that skipping COP30 sends a diplomatic signal and could hamper U.S. access to emerging green markets. His rhetoric was part policy critique, part appeal to economic competitiveness.
“Governor Newsom flew all the way to Brazil to tout the Green New Scam…These Green Dreams are killing other countries,” a White House spokesperson said, defending the administration’s energy policies.
Taylor Rogers, White House spokesperson
The White House statement, circulated through media channels, framed the administration’s deregulatory approach as protective of American consumers and energy costs, and dismissed Newsom’s trip as political posturing.
“It is very positive that we have these other leaders from the United States that are here in Belem,” Alden Meyer said, noting the value of state and local engagement in the talks.
Alden Meyer, climate negotiations analyst, E3G (think tank)
Meyer and other negotiation specialists stressed that subnational delegations can sustain cooperation and share best practices, even though federal participation at the table matters for treaty-level commitments.
Unconfirmed
- That Russia and Saudi Arabia are uniformly “going green” in ways that will produce near-term industrial advantages — some initiatives exist, but the scale and timelines of their transitions vary and are not conclusively aligned with Newsom’s characterization.
- Predictions that China will definitively “clean our clock” economically are projections based on current trends; outcomes depend on future policy choices in multiple countries and private-sector investments.
- Claims that recent federal actions will immediately translate into large, irreversible declines in U.S. competitiveness are debated among economists and depend on investment flows and policy reversals.
Bottom Line
Newsom used COP30 to draw a sharp contrast between California’s climate agenda and the federal government’s posture, framing the U.S. absence as a strategic risk to long-term economic competitiveness. The factual record he cited — rising temperatures, shifting precipitation and costly fires — underscores why subnational leaders argue for continued action despite federal retrenchment. Yet the debate about the right balance of short-term energy policy, economic costs and long-term industrial positioning remains unresolved and will shape politics ahead of 2028.
For observers and markets, the key variables to watch are investments in manufacturing and supply chains for clean technologies, federal policy shifts that might restore diplomatic engagement, and state-level implementation choices that either mitigate or amplify energy cost pressures. The next year of policy announcements and private-sector commitments will determine whether Newsom’s concern about ceding ground proves prescient or alarmist.