California Governor Gavin Newsom is leading a state delegation to the United Nations’ 30th Conference of Parties (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, this week. The event is held near the Amazon region and gathers international leaders to discuss commitments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Although California does not have a formal role in negotiating global climate agreements, Newsom and other state officials are using the conference as an opportunity to promote California’s climate policies and leadership on a global stage. “The reason I’m here is the absence of leadership coming from the United States — this vacuum, it’s rather jaw dropping,” Newsom said during remarks at the Milken Institute Global Investors’ Symposium in São Paulo. “Not even an observer; not someone taking notes.”
After the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Agreement earlier this year, California has positioned itself as a symbolic representative for American climate action. Supporters of attending such conferences argue that these gatherings help form partnerships and inspire policy changes back home. Critics from environmental justice groups question whether distant, industry-driven events reflect the needs of frontline communities.
Experts like David G. Victor from UC San Diego note that while California’s participation has symbolic value—showing continued American engagement with climate issues—it does not replace federal involvement: “The symbolic value of showing that the United States has not completely abandoned climate and clean energy…is pretty important for the rest of the world, but there’s not a huge caloric value to it.”
State officials say relationships formed at past conferences have influenced local policy through subnational agreements and legislative initiatives. Secretary Wade Crowfoot of California’s Natural Resources Agency stated, “Californians have been very clear that we also need to take actions … to combat climate change,” adding that solutions often come from outside the state.
California has signed agreements with countries such as Denmark and Mexico to pursue carbon neutrality by 2045 and collaborate on water management technologies and renewable energy projects. Senator Anna Caballero cited her trip to last year’s U.N. summit in Dubai as inspiration for legislation advancing carbon capture technologies in California.
California governors have attended previous summits—Arnold Schwarzenegger went to Copenhagen in 2009, Jerry Brown participated in Paris in 2015, and Newsom himself has regularly appeared at related events like Climate Week in New York City. Recently, Newsom was named co-chair of COP30’s Local Leaders Forum.
Some see political motivations behind these appearances. Shannon Gibson of USC said that participating gives Newsom “the ability to network and rub elbows with high level leaders” while raising his profile internationally amid speculation about a possible presidential run.
Others are more critical. State Senator Tony Strickland argued that Newsom should focus on addressing domestic issues: “We have major problems here in California,” he said. “We need a leader to solve these problems.”
Newsom’s travel expenses are covered by a private nonprofit called the California State Protocol Foundation, which receives funding from inaugural committees and external donors including philanthropic foundations and corporations. Jessica A. Levinson of Loyola Marymount University noted both advantages—reducing taxpayer costs—and risks—potential private influence over public officials—associated with such arrangements.
Legislators fund their own travel or use campaign funds for conference attendance; nonprofits have sometimes assisted with costs for lawmakers attending international events.
This year’s COP30 location has also drawn criticism due to its remoteness and limited infrastructure, making travel difficult for some participants like Senator Caballero who chose not to attend because of logistical challenges.
Environmental activists remain skeptical about how much progress is made at these conferences or whether they adequately represent local interests abroad. Catherine Garoupa from Central Valley Air Quality Coalition described them as “pretty performative meetings.” Jaron Browne from Grassroots Global Justice Alliance pointed out contradictions between California’s stated urgency on climate action and its ongoing reliance on imported crude oil.
Former Governor Schwarzenegger reflected critically on repeated international summits: “The definition of insanity is you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results…I think it’s set up the wrong way.”
While California continues its efforts abroad, questions remain about how much these high-profile appearances translate into concrete outcomes for communities most affected by pollution or those facing economic transition away from fossil fuels.
