California's Climate Diplomacy: Leadership or Political Theater?

The Context of California’s International Presence

California Governor Gavin Newsom and a delegation of top state officials have embarked on a significant diplomatic mission to Brazil, attending the United Nations’ 30th Conference of Parties (COP30) in Belém. This move comes at a particularly crucial moment in global climate politics - following the Trump administration’s second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement earlier this year, which left the United States without an official federal delegation at this critical international gathering. California, representing the world’s fourth-largest economy, has positioned itself as America’s climate ambassador on the global stage, despite lacking the formal authority to make binding international agreements.

The delegation includes Governor Newsom, Natural Resources Agency Secretary Wade Crowfoot, and legislators including Senators Josh Becker and Henry Stern. This isn’t California’s first foray into international climate diplomacy; the state has maintained a presence at every UN climate summit since Newsom took office, continuing a tradition started by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009. Governor Jerry Brown further cemented this role during the 2015 Paris Agreement negotiations, establishing the Under 2 Coalition that now includes 200 subnational governments committed to climate action.

The Strategic Rationale Behind the Mission

California officials defend their international engagement by pointing to concrete policy benefits and relationship-building opportunities. Secretary Crowfoot emphasizes that “simply put, it doesn’t make any sense that all of the answers would be found in California,” highlighting the importance of international knowledge exchange. The state has signed dozens of agreements with other regional governments and nations, including recent partnerships with Denmark committing to carbon neutrality by 2045 and with Mexico’s Sonora state to expand renewable energy generation and cross-border energy trade.

These international relationships have yielded tangible benefits, such as Denmark’s assistance with geophysical imaging technology that helped Stanford researchers map California’s groundwater systems. Legislators like Senator Anna Caballero argue that attending these conferences directly inspires state legislation, citing her 2023 Dubai trip which led to bills addressing carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Newsom’s appointment as co-chair of the UN summit’s newly-formed Local Leaders Forum further validates California’s role in subnational climate governance.

The Funding and Ethical Considerations

The financial arrangements surrounding these diplomatic missions raise important questions about transparency and influence. Newsom’s trip to Brazil is funded by the California State Protocol Foundation, a private nonprofit tied to the governor that draws money from inaugural committees and outside donors. Since 2019, the governor’s inaugural committees have contributed at least $5 million to this foundation, which aims to “lessen the burden on California taxpayers” by funding official travel and ceremonial events.

External donors have also contributed significantly, with the Hewlett Foundation providing $300,000 for Newsom’s 2023 climate-focused trip to China and even the Los Angeles Dodgers contributing $25,000 for his State of the State address. Legislators typically cover their expenses through campaign funds or personal money, though in 2021, nonprofits like the Climate Action Reserve and Climate Registry covered some costs for lawmakers attending the Scotland conference.

Loyola Marymount law professor Jessica A. Levinson captures the ethical dilemma perfectly: “On the one hand, you’re trying to protect our scarcest resource, which is taxpayer dollars… on the other hand, you are, of course, allowing private influence over public officials.” This arrangement, while potentially practical, demands rigorous scrutiny to ensure that corporate and nonprofit funding doesn’t unduly influence public policy decisions.

Critical Perspectives and Environmental Justice Concerns

Not all observers view California’s international climate diplomacy favorably. Environmental justice advocates and frontline community representatives express skepticism about the practical value of these high-profile excursions. Catherine Garoupa, executive director of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, characterizes these meetings as “pretty performative,” noting that she’s “never had a conversation or been consulted by anyone who participates in that forum.”

Jaron Browne of the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance offers a particularly pointed critique, arguing that California “talks out of both sides of our mouths” by speaking with climate urgency while maintaining reliance on imported crude oil and pollution-trading systems that allow continued environmental harm in vulnerable communities. The fundamental concern is that carbon markets like California’s cap-and-trade system let companies keep polluting while claiming progress through offsets, rather than addressing pollution at its source.

Even former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, once a trailblazer in subnational climate diplomacy, now questions the effectiveness of annual UN climate conferences, comparing the repetitive negotiation process to “the definition of insanity.” Republican State Senator Tony Strickland adds a practical political concern, arguing that Newsom should focus on California’s affordability crisis rather than using “every decision through the lens of a future presidential run.”

The Deeper Democratic Implications

What does California’s climate diplomacy reveal about the state of American democracy and governance? The very necessity of subnational actors filling international leadership voids speaks to concerning breakdowns in our federal system. When the world’s leading superpower cannot maintain consistent climate diplomacy, it falls to states like California to preserve international relationships and maintain credibility on global issues. This represents both an inspiring example of distributed leadership and a troubling indictment of federal dysfunction.

From a democratic perspective, we must ask difficult questions about accountability and representation. Who does California represent in these international forums? While officials claim to speak for the state’s environmental values, the funding mechanisms and limited inclusion of frontline community perspectives raise legitimate concerns about whose interests are truly being advanced. True democratic leadership requires not just international engagement but robust domestic processes that ensure all voices are heard, especially those most affected by both climate change and climate policies.

The Path Forward: Substance Over Symbolism

California’s climate diplomacy presents a complex tapestry of genuine commitment, political ambition, and practical limitations. The state’s presence on the international stage provides important symbolic leadership during a period of federal absence, and the policy exchanges and partnerships developed through these engagements have yielded concrete benefits. However, the performative aspects cannot be ignored, nor can the ethical questions surrounding funding sources and representation.

Moving forward, California must balance its international ambitions with deeper domestic commitments to environmental justice. This means ensuring that frontline community representatives have meaningful roles in both domestic policy development and international delegations. It means transparent funding mechanisms that avoid even the appearance of undue influence. And it means complementing international diplomacy with transformative domestic policies that match California’s rhetorical urgency with concrete actions that reduce pollution at its source rather than relying on market mechanisms that can perpetuate environmental inequalities.

The world needs climate leadership, and California’s willingness to provide it is commendable. But true leadership requires more than international appearances - it demands consistent, principled action that prioritizes people over politics and results over rhetoric. As we navigate the escalating climate crisis, we must demand both international engagement and domestic transformation, ensuring that our actions abroad reflect our values at home and serve all communities, not just political ambitions.