By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The upcoming 2025 Canadian election presents a critical juncture for national unity. A live discussion, “Election 2025: Canadian unity in crisis,” will explore this pressing issue. The event takes place April 24th at 3 p.m. ET. Registration is encouraged to participate in this timely and important conversation.
Read the original article here
World leaders from China to the European Union recently convened a climate meeting, notably absent was the United States. This absence is particularly striking given the current global climate crisis and the US’s historical role in international climate negotiations. The lack of US participation sparks several questions about the shifting global power dynamics and the underlying motivations behind this exclusion.
The timing of this meeting is noteworthy, occurring amidst increasing tensions between the US and other global powers. One could interpret this as a strategic move by other nations to forge alliances and collaborations independent of US influence, possibly reflecting a growing dissatisfaction with American unilateralism and protectionist policies. This is especially relevant considering recent criticisms of US trade policies, particularly tariffs that have impacted renewable energy sectors. The imposition of tariffs on solar panels, for instance, directly contradicts efforts to promote green technologies and transition towards a sustainable energy future.
Furthermore, the domestic policies within the United States seem at odds with a strong commitment to climate action. The weakening of environmental protection agencies and restrictions on renewable energy adoption at the state level suggest an inconsistent national approach to climate change. This inconsistent stance, coupled with past instances of environmental skepticism, casts doubt on the sincerity of US climate pledges on the international stage. It’s worth noting the sharp contrast between the passionate environmental activism of figures like Al Gore and the current political climate’s frequent downplaying of climate concerns.
The meeting’s focus on climate change could also be seen as a thinly veiled guise for other agendas. Some might argue that it serves as a platform for discussions about free trade and economic cooperation, potentially using climate change as a unifying theme to advance other geopolitical interests. The exclusion of the US could then be interpreted as a strategic maneuver to exclude a major economic player known for its protectionist trade practices. This raises questions about the true intentions of the participating nations, and whether the environmental concerns are the primary drivers of this collaboration.
China’s involvement in this climate meeting is also a particularly interesting aspect. Given China’s role as a major emitter of greenhouse gases, and its simultaneous rapid expansion of renewable energy technologies, the country’s commitment to climate action remains a complex issue. It presents a paradox: China’s significant investments in green technologies are juxtaposed against its continued reliance on fossil fuels and its ambitious infrastructure projects. This apparent contradiction makes the country’s role in such a meeting a subject of much speculation and scrutiny.
The underlying economic implications of this meeting are also significant. The global transition to green technologies presents enormous economic opportunities, and the meeting could be seen as a race to secure a dominant position in this rapidly growing market. Countries heavily invested in renewable energy technologies, like China, stand to gain significantly from this global shift. This could explain the eagerness of certain nations to cooperate and potentially exclude competitors who haven’t made similar investments or who are perceived as unreliable partners due to fluctuating domestic policies.
This event highlights a broader concern regarding global cooperation and the lack of unified action on climate change. While a climate-focused meeting without the US may appear alarming, it may also be a catalyst for other nations to take the initiative and accelerate their efforts towards a sustainable future. It could even be argued that excluding the US from the discussion may ultimately foster a more robust, unified approach among the remaining nations involved, leading to more impactful climate action.
Finally, the political landscape within the US is a key factor in understanding its absence from this meeting. The internal political divisions and struggles regarding climate policy likely hindered the US ability to participate actively in such an international forum. The deep-seated partisan divisions and the pervasive skepticism regarding climate change make it hard for the US to present a cohesive and credible front on the global stage. This, more than anything, likely prevented the US from playing a more active role in this international initiative.