The United States of America was unofficially represented at COP30, the annual UN climate conference (November 10-21) in Belem, Brazil by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). He was not granted the privilege of officially representing the U.S. The State Department refused to facilitate his trip, refused to acknowledge the senator as a representative of a congressional delegation, refusing to acknowledge COP30, refusing to acknowledge global warming. This is the first time in Senator Whitehouse’s career that the executive branch of government has dictated a congressional member’s CODEL (Congressional Delegation paid trip for members).

Image by Sam Grozyan.

The United States of America was unofficially represented at COP30, the annual UN climate conference (November 10-21) in Belem, Brazil by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). He was not granted the privilege of officially representing the U.S. The State Department refused to facilitate his trip, refused to acknowledge the senator as a representative of a congressional delegation, refusing to acknowledge COP30, refusing to acknowledge global warming. This is the first time in Senator Whitehouse’s career that the executive branch of government has dictated a congressional member’s CODEL (Congressional Delegation paid trip for members).

The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

In meetings with country representatives outside of COP30 official proceedings, Senator Whitehouse learned what’s happening to hopefully limit global warming, concluding that one way to climate safety is by imposing a fee on polluters. According to studies by Potsdam Institute, “a price on carbon” is one of the ways not yet implemented to tackle global warming.

The senator met with the Europeans, the Brits, and the Australians. The EU is instituting a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which is a global price on carbon that comes via tariffs. It is already law and set to go into effect in 2026. The conservative UK government is also in the process of figuring out how they’ll handle a carbon tariff. Australia is also looking into it.

Whitehouse: “This is sending a global price signal that if your goods are more carbon intensive than ours, we are going to charge you for that. You cannot pollute and export for free any longer.” However, a fee on carbon pollution is no guarantee of climate safety; on the other hand, not instituting a carbon fee is a pathway for climate failure, likely taking down civilization at some unexpected juncture. It’s gotten that serious.

In that regard, the value of oil and gas subsidies in the U.S. are $700 billion per year. That’s the value of polluting for free that the fossil fuel industry receives. It’s no surprise they were willing to “grease” the president with several hundred million dollars to do whatever they want to do.

American Opinion Polls on Carbon Pollution

According to the senator, Trump does not represent American interests. He only represents fossil fuel interests, not the American public. Proof is found in recent polls, as expressed in Senator Whitehouse’s speech, stating that a proposal to “limit carbon pollution by big corporations” is supported by 72% of Americans. Whereas Trump’s Mar-a-Lago commitment to fossil fuel interests has been sealed with several hundred million dollars of grease following his open offer to do whatever they want for a one-billion-dollar quid pro quo. This is simply one more weird oddball difficult to rationalize stance against America’s best interests. Nearly 2/3rds of the American public want “limits to carbon pollution.”

According to the senator’s speech, when ask if a “fee should be imposed for polluting,” Americans polled said ‘Yes’ by a resounding 74%. Once again, Trump would certainly oppose such a fee since he has already sold his soul to the polluters. American citizens diametrically oppose Trump on carbon pollution. Two-thirds of Americans favor a fee on carbon polluters. Significantly, the EU is instituting such a fee; the UK is considering it; Australia is considering it. This may become a global movement now that all past approaches over the past 30 years by nations of the world, demonstrating concern about climate change at annual COPs, have so little to show for 30 years of meetings.

An updated poll Climate Change in the American Mind d/d June 17, 2025 conducted by Yale Climate Change Communications and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communications d/d May 1-25, 2025, [can be accessed.](https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-politics-and-policy-spring-2025/#%3A~%3Atext=Requiring+fossil+fuel+companies+(coal%2Cand+30%25+of+conservative+Republicans.)

COP30 Results- Global Warming Wins Once Again

According to Reuters d/d November 22, 2025: “World secures compromise deal at COP30 that sidesteps fossil fuels.” This is one more COP failure to properly address the key reason behind starting UN climate conferences 30 years ago. The first UN climate conference, COP1, held in Berlin in 1995 started a process of negotiations to create “legally binding emission reduction targets” for the developed countries of the world. That initial “statement of purpose” remains fluttering in midair directionless, heartless, meaningless, out of reach with each annual meeting. Next year Antalya, Turkey will host the staging arena for COP31’s chatter, wine, caviar, nearly guaranteed disappointing results, and photo ops for state leaders.

The Ultimate Impact of Failure to Challenge Climate Change

Senator Whitehouse’s Senate speech (Nov. 21) discusses the outcome of failure to address climate change. Accordingly, big trouble is on the docket by avoiding the climate change issue. This threat of upcoming trouble is voiced by leading figureheads in finance. Senator Whitehouse refers to it as the Great Climate Insurance Collapse, warned by finance authorities, claiming climate change alone could reduce global GDP by 10-20%.

“In 10 or 15 years, there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage” (Federal Reserve Board Chair Powell) because people will not be able to get home insurance. This, in turn, eliminates home mortgages. “Whole regions of the U.S. are going to become so climate risky that they’re uninsurable.” (Whitehouse)

According to the senator, Florida is on a fast-track: “In Florida the insurance market is already trembling, propped up, perhaps even fake.” The likely scenario is a cascade: “It goes from climate risk-to un-insurability-to mortgage failure-to property value collapse-to recession.” Still, a typical Florida family home is $407,830 in 2025 versus $410,000 in 2023, not too much of a decrease in value in two years but still a decrease as sources say typical Florida buyers experience “climate change denialism” to an extreme despite several obvious risks. Meanwhile, Florida is the most expensive state for home insurance in the country and likely going higher, pricing many buyers out of the market.

Extreme Climate Change Shows Up in the Damnedest Places, Clobbering a Town in Nebraska

“In Cozad, Neb., a hailstorm last year caused an estimated $100 million in damage, according to local insurance agent Brian Messersmith, in a town of just 4,000 people. After the storm, many homeowners and business owners in town say they were dropped by their insurers and forced to scramble to find new, generally more expensive, policies. Others saw the price of their existing policies go up significantly. The average cost of homeowners insurance in Nebraska this year is nearly $6,400, according to Bankrate. That’s the highest in the country, and almost $4,000 above the national average.” (It’s Harder to Get Home Insurance. That’s Changing Communities Across the U.S., NPR, November 12, 2025)

A cascading climate change situation is what the chief economist of Freddie Mac told a Senate committee could happen. Freddie Mac is not a green organization. Freddie Mac is a mortgage company warning the country of climate change negatively impacting the real estate market.

The finance community is warning of big economic trouble because of climate change. These are not green NGOs. The Economist magazine featured an article entitled The Next Housing Disaster, predicting a $25 trillion hit to global real estate because of climate change’s home insurance meltdown.

The president of Aon Insurance, one of the biggest in the country, testified before the Senate budget committee, saying climate risk is a “systemic risk,” which means the issue is not confined to where it originates, it spreads. For example, the 2008 recession was systemic with the mortgage meltdown hurting everybody throughout the economic system. But now we are confronted with global systemic risks that could be globally cataclysmic after years of ignoring climate change.

Two Million Canceled Home Insurance Policies

The climate-engineered home insurance crisis is already happening and threatens to get much worse as the Trump administration officially ignores climate change, labeling it a “hoax”: “In one five-year period, 2018-2023, insurers canceled nearly 2 million homeowner’s policies in the face of rising climate risks.” (How Climate Risks Are Putting Home Insurance Out of Reach, YaleEnvironment360, September 15, 2025) Why would major insurance companies cancel 2,000,000 home insurance policies if climate change is a hoax?

Gunther Thallinger of Allianz SE, the world’s largest insurance company warned about the prospect of hitting 3C, which Senator Whitehouse believes is coming: “The financial system as we know it ceases to exist and capitalism ceases to be viable.”

The Mortgage Bankers Association says the fiscal risk associated with climate change may exceed the capacity of insurance and governmental assistance in some regions of the country.

Climate Deniers Threaten Entire Financial System

If major finance executives, including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and leading finance entities like Aon Insurance and Allianz SE believe climate change is a systemic risk to the financial system, what more is needed to reverse the administration’s anti-science, anti-climate change campaign that will harm every American and take down the entire financial system. There are no winners under this scenario, only losers, including climate deniers.

The post Pay to Pollute, Starting in 2026 appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed