Smaller Nations Forge Climate Path Independent of U.S. Under Trump

Barbados’ Prime Minister, Mia Mottley, has emerged as a key advocate for smaller economies in global climate discussions. It was noteworthy at last year’s UN climate conference when she suggested engaging with then-President-elect Trump to convey the importance of climate action.

“I am not one of those who will immediately declare doom and gloom with the election of President Trump,” she stated at a discussion last November. “We need to identify ways… to facilitate conversations.”

Mottley’s stance has since shifted. Trump, upon taking office in January, pursued an aggressive agenda against clean energy and climate collaboration. Last week, during a sustainable energy conference in Barbados, Mottley emphasized that small countries must chart their own course. “Don’t waste time lamenting what might have been,” she advised. “Address the world as it is.”

Across the three-day SEforAll Global Forum in Barbados, Trump was rarely mentioned directly. This wasn’t due to underestimation of his election’s impact on global climate progress. Instead, it reflected an acceptance of the situation, with focus shifting to creating a path forward independently of the U.S.

This offers insight into the potential shift in climate discussions. While the U.S.’s influence shouldn’t be discounted, and some nations may follow its lead, many emerging and developing economies seem determined to pursue their own clean energy strategies.

The U.S. has long had a substantial effect on international climate collaboration. As the world’s largest economy and sole superpower, climate negotiators were always mindful of U.S. politics.

With the Paris Agreement established, discussions are now centered on directing funds towards energy transition projects, especially in developing and emerging economies. Despite the U.S.’s pivotal role in establishing the system, its public funding never became a primary source of international climate finance. Developing countries and climate advocates have long maintained that the U.S. has a responsibility to contribute due to its historical emissions. Even under the climate-supportive Biden Administration, securing a commitment of $11 billion annually for international climate finance required significant effort. To provide context, developing countries expressed disappointment at the previous year’s UN climate talks that wealthier nations failed to meet their $100 billion pledge in annual climate finance.

Essentially, the U.S.’s absence in finance doesn’t leave a massive void. So, where will the necessary funds originate? A key area of discussion at the SEforAll forum, where I spoke with public and private sector representatives from various locations like Fiji to Sierra Leone, was “south-south” collaboration. Instead of relying on the U.S. and Europe for capital, developing and emerging market countries can collaborate, providing resources and financing independently.

According to data from the Brookings Institution, trade between Global South countries has recently surpassed trade between Global North countries. “This signals significant progress,” Arancha González, former foreign minister of Spain and current dean of the Paris School of International Affairs at Sciences Po, stated on a panel I moderated at the forum. “It indicates a new global landscape.”

Possible funding sources include development banks in major emerging economies like Brazil and South Africa. Institutions such as the New Development Bank, established in 2014 by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), have financed billions in clean energy development. China is also a key part of this financial scenario. Since its inception in 2013, the country’s Belt and Road Initiative has provided over $1 trillion in infrastructure capital. In recent years, the country has increasingly directed its funding towards green projects.

Many developing countries have also focused on raising capital domestically to fund projects by encouraging savings and pension funds to invest locally rather than seeking higher returns abroad.

Additionally, there are evolving methods of what is commonly termed blended finance. Traditionally, this involves combining public and private capital, where public funds mitigate risk for private investors. More recently, philanthropy has become part of the blended finance discussion, playing an increasingly important role in providing money.

“We see unique partnerships where institutional investors collaborate with philanthropic organizations to develop innovative blended finance solutions,” explains Ije Ikoku Okeke, who manages catalytic climate capital for the Global South at RMI, a clean energy non-profit.

A right-wing populist might find this new dynamic acceptable, believing that American money should prioritize American interests, leaving other nations to manage their own affairs. However, is the U.S. truly better off if the rest of the world forms a coalition without American involvement?

Beyond U.S. strategic interests, it’s somewhat refreshing to hear discussions about clean energy in the Global South that bypass debates about whether the U.S. will fulfill its moral obligation as the world’s largest historic emitter and instead prioritize solutions.

To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter .

TIME receives support for climate coverage from the Outrider Foundation. TIME is solely responsible for all content.