Progress toward global climate goals may seem unlikely since the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases (after China) – the U.S. – will not send an official government delegation to COP30, the annual UN climate talks set for Nov. 10-21 in Brazil. Still, the rest of the world will press forward, according to Stanford experts who have helped inform the science guiding international consensus on why and how countries should reduce their planet-warming emissions.

Below, Stanford experts Maxine Burkett, Jen Burney, and Chris Field discuss how countries, cities, and coalitions are working to meet their respective governments’ commitments to address climate change. They discuss what’s at stake at the 30th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or COP30, the promise and risks of proposed mitigation techniques known as “natural climate solutions,” and some surprising trends quietly accelerating climate progress around the world.

Burney’s research focuses on the relationships between climate and food security.

Burkett was active in international climate negotiations, including facilitating COP agenda items related to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities while serving as senior advisor to the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry, and then as deputy assistant secretary of state for oceans, fisheries, and polar affairs from 2021 to 2023. She was a contributing author to the Fourth National Climate Assessment: Hawai'i and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands in 2018.

Field has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group that reports on issues such as managing risks of extreme events and disasters to advance adaptation. He will be at COP30 in his role as a member of the conference’s Science Council on Climate and as the head of a Stanford delegation, including six Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability students. At COP30, Stanford will co-sponsor the first-ever science pavilion at a UN climate conference.

Burkett and Burney are professors of environmental social sciences in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability. Field is the Perry L. McCarty Director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

At COP 30, negotiators will be debating how to value natural climate solutions, such as farming techniques to lock more carbon in soil. What’s a plausible good outcome from those talks – and what’s a potential unintended consequence people most people may not know about?

Burkett: Meaningful and verifiable progress in natural climate solutions can also slow or reverse the loss of biodiversity. It can also do the exact opposite by compromising delicately balanced ecosystems if not done carefully. If local communities and indigenous peoples are not engaged appropriately and effectively, natural solutions can limit access to local environments or negatively affect cultural practices that themselves have generally been positive from a climate and biodiversity perspective. 

Burney: A good outcome would be a focus on real counting of actual carbon atoms. We are in this climate crisis because we’ve moved a huge amount of carbon into the atmosphere, knocking our planet out of equilibrium. There’s been a lot of funky accounting over the years focusing on things that aren’t the relevant parameters. For example, energy efficiency is a means to a climate end, not the end in and of itself.

A potential pitfall is incentivizing the farming of carbon that displaces meaningful amounts of food. If carbon sequestration policies are poorly designed, they could lead to important farmland being taken out of production because the carbon credits are worth more than revenues from food production.

Field: One of the major topics on the agenda for COP 30 is the part of the agreement that describes the transfer of carbon credits among countries. The details have never been worked out, even though the Paris Agreement was forged 10 years ago. The challenge is defining details that ensure integrity – that the climate sees at least a ton of benefit for every ton of emissions counted – but that also keep the system simple enough to support broad participation and truly unlock the potential of natural climate solutions. Striking this balance is tricky, and there is no guarantee that the countries will get it right.

What changes when the U.S. does not participate in global climate negotiations? 

Field: So much of the world’s capital and financial expertise is in the U.S. – that’s essential to international progress on climate solutions. The U.S. is also essential for helping set aspirations. For many decades, people around the world have looked to the U.S. for where they want to take their countries’ growth.

What are some groups that will help to shape the conversation at this year’s climate negotiations?

Burney: The world is moving forward even as the U.S. retreats from global climate action. A lot of European countries have made incredible progress reducing emissions. China’s EV industry is thriving. Around the world, other types of organizations and coalitions, like the Arctic Council, a forum that promotes cooperation among Arctic countries, are showing that progress can be made outside of the UN framework. I think the work happening at city and county levels, such as C40, a global network of cities taking action on climate change, is really inspiring.

Burkett: I have long been in awe of the Alliance of Small Island States and countries like the Marshall Islands, Vanuatu, and Barbados. They truly punch above their weight and continue to press international legal systems broadly to more appropriately address the broad and unprecedented realities of climate change. The climate crisis is about the lives and livelihoods that are at the front lines, which the islands understand acutely.

What’s something quietly accelerating climate progress right now that might surprise a casual observer?

Field: The deployment of renewable energy systems in the poorest countries. Renewables are now so cheap that they are becoming the logical choice for countries just beginning to modernize, even countries with little or no existing infrastructure for electricity, large-scale irrigation, or motorized transport. I am also watching with interest major investments in renewable energy and adaptation in the Middle East.  It may shock people, especially in the U.S., to see petroleum-exporting countries preparing for a post-petroleum world.

Burney: Youth. Younger generations are very pragmatic about the realities of climate change and have no problem speaking truth to power. I see this as really important. It’s shifting public support for policies all around the globe.