Every five years, all 195 signatories of the 2015 Paris Agreement must submit updated plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming. These plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), are key components of the agreement and represent countries’ highest ambitions for emissions reductions over the next decade. 

“The NDC is a pledge,” Director of International Government Relations at Woodwell Climate Dr. Matti Goldberg says. “It’s a pledge by a government to reduce their emissions by a certain amount, by a certain time frame. It can also be a pledge of taking certain types of actions. Each NDC also contains plans and measures to put it into action.”

This year, countries must submit their third NDC ahead of COP30 in Belém, Brazil.

How do NDCs fit into the Paris Agreement?

The Paris Agreement is a legally-binding international treaty under the UNFCCC. The treaty states that signatories should work together to limit global temperature increase to “well under 2°C” above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to keep the increase below 1.5°C. Nationally Determined Contributions outline how countries plan to achieve this goal and take other measures as part of the global climate effort.  

Each NDC must build upon a country’s previous submission and reflect the party’s “highest possible ambition,” according to the Paris Agreement. While parties are legally required to submit an NDC and pursue actions to reach the target, they are “not legally bound to reach the target,” Goldberg says. “It’s a gigantic loophole in a way…although such flexibility is obviously necessary for countries to agree to this, and it does create a structure of pressure.” 

After NDCs are submitted, the UNFCCC assesses the combined impact of countries’ NDCs on projected global emissions in a synthesis report. Parties in the Paris agreement also submit a Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) every two years, which outlines each country’s progress made towards accomplishing their NDCs. 

“It’s the country’s own assessment,” Goldberg says. “But if a country announces a metric, then others can, of course, also look at whether that metric is being followed. This information creates the basis for civil society and other governments to put pressure on those governments.” Further transparency is created by a process where international experts review each country’s biennial reports.

Despite the ambitious intent of NDCs, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Simon Stiell determined last November that previous pledges fell “miles short of what’s needed to stop global heating from crippling every economy and wrecking billions of lives and livelihoods across every country.”

What is in the 2025 NDCs?

NDCs were initially due in February 2025, but with only 13 Parties submitting on time, the UNFCCC Secretariat announced a cut-off date in September to have enough time to prepare its synthesis before the start of COP30 in November.  China, the United States, India, the European Union, Russia and Brazil were the world’s top emitters in 2023. Together, these six parties accounted for 62.7% of all global emissions. Of the top greenhouse gas emitters, only the U.S. and Brazil sent in their NDCs as of early September 2025.

The United States submitted its NDC in 2024 under the Biden Administration and set a target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 61 to 66% below 2005 levels in 2035. After taking office, President Trump issued an executive order announcing the U.S.’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which will go into effect in 2026. After January 2026, the U.S. will no longer be required to submit new NDCs or Biennial Transparency Reports.

Despite the country’s withdrawal, Goldberg says the U.S. may see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because of its continuing transition from coal to natural gas, renewables and nuclear power — which, according to Goldberg, is driven more by economics and less by policy. Still, Dr. Christopher Schwalm, Vice President of Science at Woodwell Climate, predicts there is “no way” the United States will hit the targets set out in the NDC given the current global political climate. Even if the U.S. does reach its goals, the NDC still does not align with the global 1.5°C limit, according to the Climate Action Tracker. Schwalm calls the 1.5°C target “dead as a doornail.” To reach this goal, we would have needed global greenhouse gas emissions to peak by 2025. 

Brazil’s most recent NDC states a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 59% to 67% compared to its 2005 emissions. Goldberg calls it a “pretty ambitious” absolute target for a country classified as a developing country under the UNFCCC. However, the Brazilian climate organization Observatório do Clima states the NDC goals do not align with the global 1.5°C limit.

How could reaching targets in NDCs impact warming trajectories?

Woodwell Climate research scientist Dr. Abigail Lute wanted to see how much of a difference just two of the top-emitting countries’ NDCs could make.

“Are we moving the needle here or not?” she says. “How much are we moving the needle? Are we moving it enough to avoid 2°C? That’s the big picture, to see how ambitious these new pledges are.” 

Lute modeled how both the U.S. and Brazil’s promises together could change the global warming trajectory using a “middle-of-the-road” scenario for future greenhouse gas emissions — though, at the moment, that scenario might be more optimistic than our current trajectory, she says. 

For the first ten to 20 years after implementing the NDCs, temperatures will temporarily increase. This is due to the reduction in polluting gases such as sulfates that actually have a cooling effect in the atmosphere. After about a decade or two, the reduction in warming gases such as methane and carbon dioxide will cause temperatures to fall. 

According to Lute’s calculations, under moderate emissions scenarios, the probability of exceeding 2°C is 25% by 2050 and 78% by 2100. If both the U.S. and Brazil reach their NDC targets, the probability of exceeding 2°C stays about the same for 2050 but drops down to 73% for 2100. 

Global warming is expected to reach 1.8°C  by 2050 and 2.3°C by 2100 under the medium emissions scenario. With the U.S. and Brazil’s combined NDCs, Lute expects warming to be reduced by about 0.01°C in 2050 and 0.06°C by 2100. 

While these contributions may seem small, Brazil and the U.S. only represent two of the 195 parties in the Paris Agreement. 

“It’s two of the larger ones for sure, but it’s only two,” Lute says. “If we extrapolate it to everybody, then it can make a meaningful difference…the story here is that everybody needs to contribute. This is a collective problem, and even one large country can’t solve it.”

On September 19, Woodwell Climate submitted public comment on the U.S. Forest Service’s proposed rulemaking to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, also known as the Roadless Rule. This rule banned logging and the creation of new logging roads in 58 million acres of National forests. 

The federal agency’s intent to rescind the Roadless Rule aligns with the presidential Executive Order, “Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation” which seeks to remove obstacles to extracting natural resources on public lands. Additionally, the agency claims the repeal of the rule will allow forest managers to remove trees from “overstocked forests” to prevent wildfire and disease. 

Woodwell Climate strongly opposes the rescission of the rule, citing the best available science that shows increased roadways and subsequent logging will result in ecological degradation, increased wildfire, and loss of critical carbon stocks. 

“The Roadless Rule currently protects millions of acres from extractive activities that would result in ecosystem degradation and increased vulnerability to wildfire,” writes Senior Scientist Rich Birdsey in the comment. “Rescinding the Roadless Rule would harm many public uses of the land, cause significant emissions of greenhouse gases, and destroy critical habitat for many species of wildlife.”

Federal forests have major carbon storage and climate mitigation potential, absorbing approximately 3% of U.S. emissions from fossil fuel burning each year. Mature and old growth forests are responsible for the majority of that, and the Roadless Rule has been instrumental in preventing the logging of these important forests, including the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.

“Increased logging is the single greatest threat to these forests and the carbon they hold — and it is the threat we most directly control,” the Woodwell Climate comment states. “As the impacts of climate change become more extreme and damaging, we should prioritize protecting mature and old growth forests on federal lands, not harvesting them.”

Additionally, studies show that road building into previously undisturbed forests actually increases vulnerability to fire. This is because most wildfires are caused by human ignitions which become more common with better access roads. Undisturbed mature and old-growth forest ecosystems are also more resilient to wildfires compared to forests that are actively logged and managed. 

Read the full public comment here.

What keeps Woodwell Climate Director of Government Relations, Laura Uttley going day to day? 

Uttley leads the Center’s domestic policy advocacy, and it’s been a hard year for domestic policy. In the past, her work has involved building relationships with members of Congress, tracking climate-relevant legislation, and planning Hill visits and briefings with Center scientists. This year, it’s been all that plus an exhausting gauntlet of crisis response, as climate science falls under attack from an antagonistic presidential administration. It is a federal policy landscape that makes advancing climate research, mitigation policy, and adaptation efforts harder than perhaps at any point in U.S. history. 

But waiting for easier times is not an option. 

Since the start of the new presidential administration in January, federal funding and support infrastructure for science has been slashed, and many laws, court rulings, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that form the foundation of the U.S.’s climate and environmental policy have been targeted or overturned to make way for an agenda that prioritizes fossil fuels. Protecting as much environmental policy as possible has become an urgent priority for Uttley and the rest of the Government Relations team at Woodwell, but despite the chaos and uncertainty, they aren’t flagging.

 “What gets me going on a day to day basis, is that I have a job to do,” says Uttley. 

Holding back the floodwaters

At the beginning of the year, Uttley and the Government Relations team were bracing themselves for the new administration to “flood the zone.” The tactic, which involves mounting as many attempts as possible to repeal legislation, cut funding, and stymie regular governmental proceedings in a short timespan, is designed to overwhelm potential opposition and the media. 

“It is done very intentionally,” says Uttley. “To distract. To exhaust. To cloud your judgment on things, and get you too focused on one area, so that you’re unaware or unable or too limited in terms of resources to work in a different space.”

And that’s exactly what newly appointed officials did—from pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, to proposing the sale of public lands, to firing staff from key agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to changing regulation around how the EPA implements signature environmental legislation.

The instinct, Uttley says, for individuals and organizations that care about diversity, the environment, or public funding for science, is to react to everything because every attack feels like a devastating loss. But that is exactly what drains motivation and resources the fastest. 

“I don’t have the luxury of outrage right now,” says Uttley. 

So she and others have had to stay focused on the most significant policy battles, concentrating resources on the areas most aligned with Woodwell Climate’s mission and expertise.

“You could make the argument that we should be in any number of fights and policy debates,” says Uttley. “But if we go too far afield, the impact of our voice changes in those dialogues that are so core to our mission. Staying focused can be really hard to do when everything feels so deeply important.” 

Top Priority: The Endangerment Finding

Among the fights the Center’s Government Relations team has engaged in, protecting the infrastructure of American climate policy has been a chief priority. In July, the administration announced its intent to revoke the Endangerment Finding, which underpins the majority of U.S. climate action. This finding from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) affirms that the emission of six greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere— including carbon dioxide and methane— represents a threat to human health and wellbeing, giving the agency authority to regulate them. The decision was based on rigorous science, and was re-affirmed in a 2018 study, led by then-president of Woodwell Climate, Dr. Phil Duffy, who wrote that in the intervening years evidence in support of the finding had only accumulated.

The current administration has attempted to call into question the scientific basis of the finding by releasing a report from the Department of Energy (DOE) that challenges consensus on the damaging impacts of carbon emissions. The suggestion that regulating emissions has caused more harm than the effects of climate change, according to Dave McGlinchey, who served as Woodwell Climate’s Chief of Government Relations between 2016 and 2025, is a blatant dismissal of scientific fact.

“We built an operation here at Woodwell that is very non-partisan, but the idea that the Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government just doesn’t engage with evidence, or moves forward despite clearly contravening evidence, is a real challenge,” says McGlinchey.

It also dismisses the fact that the EPA’s ability to regulate things like tailpipe and power plant emissions has improved air quality for millions of Americans. The finding has made our skies clearer, lungs healthier, and contributed meaningfully to reducing the U.S.’s emissions.

Legal challenges to the proposed repeal began to roll in almost immediately after its announcement, and the opportunity for public comment on the rule was extended to September 22. The Woodwell Climate team developed an organizational comment in support of the Finding to throw more scientific weight behind the efforts to keep it in place.

Climate risk spans political divides

While the political landscape around climate mitigation remains contentious, opportunities to advance resilience projects on the local scale remain. Communities across the political spectrum are feeling the acute impacts of climate change and need information to protect themselves.

“Risk is a bipartisan issue,” says McGlinchey. “Unfortunately, in this country, we have repeated, catastrophic reminders of what climate change impacts look like, so people are attuned to that. They want to understand risk and they want to understand how to become more resilient.“

Andrew Condia, External Affairs Manager, leads the Center’s primary climate adaptation project, Just Access. The initiative connects climate scientists with communities both in the U.S. and around the world to provide assessments of current and future climate risks at no cost to the communities. With a better understanding of how variables like flooding, drought, heatwaves, and fires will impact their communities in the coming years, leaders in municipal governments have been able to have climate-informed conversations about planning, infrastructure, and public health. Even in overwhelmingly conservative areas.

“We work with some Democratic mayors, some Republican mayors, and they are lined up and equally as engaged in the process,” says Condia. “They understand the importance of this information and know that it’s a critical tool to help them as their communities grow and change in the future.”

The sweeping nature of cutbacks on the federal level has meant that municipalities are now one of the only places these conversations are able to move forward.

“I think local governments recognize that in the absence of federal leadership, it’s up to them to step up to make progress on these issues. It’s the only climate action in the country that is really making meaningful progress right now,” says Condia.    

Bigger picture, longer term

At higher levels of government, McGlinchey says the current top priority is to maintain relationships with policymakers and lay the groundwork for long-term changes while momentum in the short term has been halted.

“We can’t look at how bleak the landscape appears to be and throw our hands up and give up. Because political winds shift frequently in this country, and fairly dramatically, and when they shift again, we don’t want to start at zero,” says McGlinchey.

For the past three years the Government Relations team has organized “fly-ins”, which bring Woodwell Climate scientists to Washington D.C. for meetings with Members of Congress and their staff. The fly-ins are key to how the Center stewards relationships on Capitol Hill and raises issues like permafrost thaw or flood insurance risk to the attention of legislators. Despite this year’s political changes, Uttley was still able to bring 12 scientists, board members, and staff for meetings with 15 congressional offices this September.

Woodwell has also remained active in coalition groups, which combine the power of many organizations to push for common goals. 

“We’re engaged in the Adaptation Working Group, Friends of NOAA, the Coalition for National Science Funding, and more,” says Uttley. “From a policy perspective we have really seen the advocacy community rally together this year.”

And while the U.S. regresses on climate action, the rest of the world continues forward. Woodwell Climate is helping to propel important climate policy on the international stage, forming a delegation to the annual UN Conference of Parties (COP) in Belém, Brazil in November. Given its location, tropical forests will feature heavily on the agenda this year, and the Center will be showcasing emerging work on tropical regenerative agriculture, sustainable development in the DRC, and financing for forest protection. The Center is also collaborating with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to provide technical support for countries submitting biennial transparency reports on their progress towards climate goals.

Momentum on climate means telling climate stories

Still, facing down the urgency and magnitude of climate change, these incremental wins and slowly unfolding plans often don’t feel like enough compared to swift federal actions. Especially for individuals who don’t have their hands on the levers of power. But Uttley says the local level is where most change has always started, and individuals can make a difference. 

“While I’m working to make systemic change on the federal level, one of the most powerful things each of us can do to keep up momentum on climate is to tell stories about local impacts,” says Uttley. Whether it’s about soccer practices canceled for heat or commuting lanes flooded, stories that connect climate change to our daily lives help change minds and motivate action.

Working on climate policy in times like these is a careful balance of hope and disappointment, Uttley says, but in order to move forward hope always has to win out. Not wishful thinking, but the kind of hope that springs from facing down the obstacles and getting to work.

“I’ve been in public policy and advocacy for 15 years,” says Uttley. “If I didn’t have a strong sense of optimism and hope, I would not be able to do this job.”

The EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding has underpinned almost all U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, making it a prime target for the Trump administration’s rollback of climate policies. A day-one executive order included a directive to review the “legality and continuing applicability” of the finding. On March 12, the EPA announced that it would potentially rescind the Finding, and the announcement was formalized with a proposed rule on July 29. 

Repealing the Finding would undo more than a decade of work that has made American communities healthier, skies clearer of smog and other pollution, and contributed to the country’s decreasing carbon emissions.

What is the Endangerment Finding?

The Endangerment Finding is a pivotal determination by the EPA, issued in response to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court Case Massachusetts vs. EPA. In that case, the court held that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and that after it has made a finding of endangerment, the agency cannot refuse to regulate these gases.

Additionally, the EPA found that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are both a hazard to public health and that motor vehicle emissions contribute to this pollution. In the years since, the EPA has built on the original ruling and issued subsequent endangerment findings relating to aircraft and utility emissions under other provisions of the Clean Air Act .

Why is the Endangerment Finding important?

As a result, the Endangerment Finding has become the legal foundation for essentially all federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. – including motor vehicle tailpipe emissions and power plant rules.

The EPA’s proposed rule would repeal all greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, and would preempt any state fuel efficiency or vehicle emissions laws or regulations. Furthermore, this repeal could be a foundation for undoing greenhouse gas emissions regulations on stationary sources like power plants or oil and gas facilities.

The Endangerment Finding is based on sound science

The attempt to repeal the Endangerment Finding is emblematic of the current administration’s disregard for scientific consensus around the causes and impacts of climate change. 

The original finding draws from expertise at the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Academies of Sciences. It examined public health and public welfare in the U.S., with a focus on air quality, food production and agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise and coastal areas, energy, infrastructure, and settlements, and ecosystems and wildlife. The EPA received over 380,000 public comments, the majority of which provided support for the Finding.

In 2018, Dr. Philip Duffy, then-president of Woodwell Climate Research Center, led a review of the scientific foundation of the Endangerment Finding. That work, published in the journal Science, found that “for each of the areas addressed in the EF, the amount, diversity, and sophistication of the evidence has increased markedly, clearly strengthening the case for endangerment. New evidence about the extent, severity, and interconnectedness of impacts detected to date and projected for the future reinforces the case that climate change endangers the health and welfare of current and future generations.”

What’s next for climate policy?

The legal validity of the administration’s proposed rule was contested almost immediately and challenges will likely continue to roll in even if the rule is made official. 

The EPA has extended a public comment period on this topic through September 22, 2025. The recently released Department of Energy (DOE) report, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, which challenges scientific consensus by claiming that carbon dioxide-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, serves as a foundation for the EPA’s proposed rule. That report is also open for public comment through September 2, 2025.  

The National Academy of Sciences has fast-tracked its scientific review of the impacts of greenhouse gases on human health in order to inform the decision within the comment period, and has requested contributions from scientists and experts in the fields of public health, extreme weather, climate modeling, agriculture, and infrastructure. Woodwell Climate is contributing to the opportunities for public comment and scientific engagement to aid future consideration of this, and similar, proposals in courts and encourages members of the public to do the same.

Last month in Dakar, Senegal, Woodwell Climate Associate Scientist Glenn Bush and Forests & Climate Change Coordinator Joseph Zambo facilitated a high-level workshop with the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Director of Climate Change, Aimé Mbuyi, lead scientist on the country’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) reporting process, Prof. Onesphore Mutshaili, and project consultant Melaine Kermarc. The goal of the workshop was to begin generating a clear set of priorities for the next 5 years for stepping up the ambition of the country’s NDCs, and to discuss strategies for monitoring and reporting on emissions.

Under the Paris Agreement, each country is required to submit to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change a detailed description of their emissions reduction commitments and then regular reports on progress. Currently, DRC has pledged to reduce emissions by 21% by 2030, focusing on reform in their energy, agriculture, forestry, and other land use sectors. While NDCs are intended to represent a country’s highest possible ambition, DRC is looking to step up further. Officials are at work developing a plan to reach net-zero emissions, which would place the country among the leaders of climate policy in Africa.

In order to do this, DRC needs a reliable framework for measuring and monitoring emissions, so that progress can be accurately reported on. At the workshop, Bush, Mbuyi, Zambo, Kermarc  and Mutshaili discussed ways to strengthen the NDC reporting process. Among the top needs identified was stronger institutional scientific capacity, increased coordination and data sharing, and more funding and awareness of the process at local and provincial levels.

“High quality data is essential to building a high integrity NDC,” says Bush. “Improving the scope and quality of data available to monitor carbon will not only help the country meet the highest tier of reporting standards, but also access performance-based payment mechanisms to help finance the transition to a low emissions economy.” 

Through their conversations about challenges and opportunities, the group identified three areas for intervention that will help the country navigate towards a stronger emissions reduction plan. These recommendations were outlined in a report on the workshop proceedings.

  1. Improved governance and policy management: Establishing a National Climate Change Council to better integrate climate policy into national development plans.
  2. Science-backed carbon accounting and budgeting: Developing credible data standards for measuring emissions and ecosystem services to support transparent and effective reporting on climate performance. 
  3. Cross-sectoral integration: Promoting emissions reductions across all sectors through collaborative partnerships, particularly in the field of climate-smart agriculture and carbon payment mechanisms. 

Mr Aimé Mbuyi, Head of the Climate Change Division (CCD) at the DRC’s Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development, declared that “these recommendations reflect an important set of practical steps to move from aspiration to operational reality in order to increase the financing and impact to conserve our forests and stimulate sustainable development in the DRC”.

Woodwell Climate Research Center has been a long time partner of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. The Center is assisting the ministry in laying the technical foundations to support the NDC improvement process and helping build in-country scientific capacity to make a net-zero emissions plan a reality. This and other partnerships will be essential in transitioning the DRC to a low-carbon economy.

“We appreciated the long-standing trust that has developed over years of formal and informal collaboration on climate policy,” said Mbuyi. “The scientific partnership with Woodwell is invaluable to us at CCD, providing actionable information that has proven essential to advancing the climate mitigation and adaptation agenda.”

While the annual climate Conference of Parties (COP) each fall is the largest and most visible event of the global climate effort, international climate action happens all year long. Each June, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) holds a preparatory conference in Bonn, Germany. These summer climate meetings, often referred to in shorthand as “Bonn,” bring together up to 7000 delegates for the nitty gritty work of international cooperation.

At Bonn, government delegations negotiate the full range of issues surrounding global climate collaboration, scientific organizations present their latest findings, civil society groups advocate for climate action, and diverse coalitions showcase their efforts. The June meetings lay the groundwork for decisionmaking and collaboration at the upcoming COP, and often give a clear indication of the challenges to come in the fall negotiations. This year, from June 16 to 26, conversations at Bonn spanned topics including the development of indicators for global resilience, clarifying how the world should pursue the global energy and forestry related targets agreed on at COP 28, mobilizing climate finance, increasing countries’ ambition for emissions reduction, and ensuring a just global transition away from fossil fuels. 

This year’s summer meetings proved a tough one for governments attempting to move forward on nearly every issue, though delegates did manage to achieve clarity on the decisionmaking agenda for the upcoming COP30, to be held in Belém, Brazil in November. In the science realm, the UNFCCC launched a systematic mapping of what research needs are currently being met by the scientific community and where there are still gaps in actionable information. 

Beyond the intergovernmental negotiations the conference included a wide range of events and activities by observer organizations. A Woodwell Climate delegation was in attendance again this year, taking part in some of the key activities of the conference. Here are 3 highlights from The Center’s engagement at this year’s June climate meetings.

On top of substantive agenda items, participants tried to grapple with the logistical issues arising around the conference in Belém, with affordability and accessibility being particularly acute concerns for non-governmental organizations and Global South participants. Despite the questions remaining on this front, the outcomes from this June’s climate meetings have built the foundations for a pivotal COP30 agenda— at a time when ambitious climate action couldn’t be more important.