The television streaming market is currently attracting considerable attention from policy makers. This follows Warner Bros. accepting Netflix’s offer to buy part of the company for $72bn. To understand how this deal came about and why there is policy concern, we need to go back a few years.
The media and entertainment conglomerate Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) was created in 2022 when AT&T sold Warner Bros to Discovery.1 However, in June 2025 the company announced that it would split the business into two parts. One would be (a) the studio for TV and movie production, where for example the Harry Potter franchises were made, and (b) the TV streaming business, home to for example the hit TV series Succession. The other, the more traditional and declining TV networks, including channels such as CNN, Discovery and TNT Sports, would form a new company called Discovery Global. David Zaslav, WBD President and Chief Executive stated that:
We are empowering these iconic brands with the sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape.2
Shortly afterwards, rival media and entertainment conglomerate, Paramount Skydance, made a series of bids to purchase the entire WBD business. But these were rejected by the WBD board. Despite this, in October 2025 WBD made public that it was open to a sale and had received unsolicited interest from several companies. It was believed that this included offers from Comcast and Netflix.
Recent developments
In December 2025, Netflix announced that it had agreed a deal with WBD to buy its studio and streaming service business, including its back catalogue of shows. The deal is planned to be put to WBD shareholders in the next few months.3 Netflix has over 300m subscribers across the globe and streams popular shows, such as Stranger Things and Squid Games.
Despite this accepted offer, Paramount has subsequently pursued a hostile takeover of WBD by going straight to its shareholders. In addition, Paramount launched a lawsuit to get further information on how Netflix was chosen as the buyer and to provide WBD shareholders with information on the value of the TV network business that WBD was selling. This, however, was quickly thrown out of the courts.
Over time, Netflix and Paramount have tinkered with their bids to make them more attractive to WBD. Whilst Paramount’s bid was all cash, originally Netflix was offering a mixture of cash and shares. However, in January, it switched this to an all-cash offer. In February, Paramount made clear that if WBD instead accepted its offer, it would pay the $2.8bn termination fee that would be owed to Netflix.4 Furthermore, from early 2027 Paramount would pay WBD shareholders payments of $650m per quarter, known as ticking fees, if combining WBD and Paramount faced regulatory delay.
In mid-February 2026, it emerged that, following a waiver from Netflix, WBD had reopened talks with Paramount. Paramount was given a week to make its offer. Then, under the agreed deal, Netflix would have the right to adjust its bid. This is an attempt by WBD to end the hostile bidding war Paramount is pursuing and to provide clarity for its shareholders. WBD has reiterated that it will:
continue to recommend and remain fully committed to our transaction with Netflix. [However], we welcome the opportunity to engage with you and expeditiously determine whether Paramount Skydance can deliver an actionable, binding proposal that provides superior value.5
The insertion of the ticking fees by Paramount is in response to the substantial attention competition authorities across the globe are paying to the acquisition of WBD. The deal is being investigated by the US Department of Justice and, in early February, Netflix was questioned by the US Senate Antitrust Sub-committee. During this hearing, one of the Senators expressed his anger with the country’s competition laws and raised concerns that the deal would result in Netflix getting:
more power over consumers and leaving fewer alternatives and streaming platforms.6
While Paramount did not attend this hearing, it is believed that it has raised concerns about the Netflix-WBD deal to regulators. Netflix co-CEO, Ted Sarandos, has also met with Donald Trump to discuss the deal. However, Trump subsequently stated that the deal ‘could be a problem’.7
The EU and UK markets
Furthermore, whilst all the companies involved are American, both the mergers with Netflix and Paramount are being investigated by the European Commission as markets in Europe would be affected.
In the UK, a group of politicians and former policymakers, have written to the Competition and Markets Authority urging it to conduct a full investigation of the Netflix-WBD merger. The letter argues that the merger could have:
damaging consequences for consumers, the UK’s world-leading creative industries and the UK cinema industry.
and that:
At a time when the British consumer can ill-afford more price increases, Netflix would possess an unprecedented ability to raise prices to access television and films.8
The letter comes at a time when pressure is being placed on the CMA to adopt a generally more business-friendly approach.
The impact of the merger on the UK market is particularly complicated since Warner Bros.’ streaming service, HBO Max, is only due to launch in the UK in March 2026. This is still the plan, with WBD’s head of global streaming, Jean-Briac Perette acknowledging that:
We are likely the last scaled global streamer to come to market. We’ve tried to learn from the rest. We’re a complementary and distinct service to the more volume-driven or basic cable-like streamers in the market. More is not better. Better is better.9
An alternative route to regulatory approval
An easier route to regulatory approval may well be instrumental in allowing Netflix or Paramount to win the battle for WBD. Netflix stresses that the deal will create economic growth and jobs. Netflix’s Sarandos highlighted that:
This is not a typical media merger where you end up with what’s called the Noah’s Ark problem — two of everything. We are buying a company that has assets that we do not, and we will keep investing in those.10
The problem of economic power
In contrast, critics argue that either of the deals would create a new company with too much power. However, given the nature of the firms involved, the competition issues will be fundamentally different between the two deals.
The Paramount deal would primarily reduce the number of studios in the market. This could provide the new merged studio with more bargaining power over distributors, advertisers and creators. Ultimately, this could negatively impact on the final product that consumers watch in the cinema and on television.
The Netflix deal on the other hand would impact directly on the streaming market. In the USA, 80% of consumers have both Netflix and HBO Max.11 After the merger, consumers would have less choice of competing services and Netflix-HBO Max combined may well have an incentive to raise its subscription prices.
In the UK, there are currently three leading streaming services: Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+, each with around 23% of the market.12 The merger with WBD could allow Netflix to become the clear market leader.
Concerns about YouTube
When examining streaming markets in all countries, an important factor will be whether to include YouTube in the market. Netflix certainly argues that it is a key competitor, at the hearing Sarandos stated that:
we are competing for the same content, we are competing for the same viewers, we are competing often for the same ad dollars. YouTube is not just cat videos anymore. YouTube is TV.13
If YouTube is included, in the USA it would be the market leader with 13%, ahead of Netflix on 9%. However, the competition authorities may conclude that YouTube’s product and business model is sufficiently different and so not include it in the streaming market.14
The issue of cinemas
A second concern in the Netflix deal will be the Warner Bros.’ studio content that Netflix would own. The merged business may have an incentive to discontinue, raise the price or reduce the quality of the studio output that it supplies to cinemas. Thus, the competition authorities’ investigations will also pay close attention to the impact on the cinema market.
In line with these arguments, the Hollywood screenwriters’ union, the Writers Guild of America, has indicated that the Netflix-WMD deal should be stopped and filmmakers are clearly concerned about Netflix prioritising streaming.15
The competition authorities may well consider imposing remedies before they are willing to allow either deal to go ahead. With this in mind, it is interesting that Netflix has already made clear that it will continue the 45-day exclusive window that Warner Bros. provides cinemas to show its films.
It will be fascinating to see how the competing bids play out and how the competition regulators view them.
References
- AT&T agrees deal to combine WarnerMedia with Discovery
The Guardian, Mark Sweney (16/5/21)
- HBO and CNN owner to split streaming and cable businesses
BBC News, Adam Hancock (10/6/25)
- Netflix’s co-CEO went to an antitrust hearing and a culture war broke out
NBC News, Saba Hamedy (3/2/26)
- Warner Bros gives Paramount seven days to make ‘best and final’ offer
The Guardian, Mark Sweney (17/2/26)
- ibid.
- NBC News, op. cit.
- Trump says $72bn Netflix-Warner Bros deal ‘could be a problem’
BBC News, Osmond Chia (8/12/25)
- UK politicians call for competition review of Netflix bid for Warner Bros
Financial Times (26/1/26)
- Warner streaming boss defends HBO Max UK launch ahead of Netflix takeover
Financial Times (9/2/26)
- NBC News, op. cit.
- Netflix and Warner Bros struggle to defend merger
BBC News, Danielle Kaye (3/2/26)
- Netflix, Disney+, Prime: Streaming platform market share report UK 2025
InsiderMedia, Jennifer O’Keeffe (2/12/25)
- BBC News, Danielle Kaye op. cit.
- Paramount sweetens Warner Bros bid with offer to pay Netflix break-up cost, other fees
Reuters, Harshita Mary Varghese and Aditya Soni (11/2/26)
- In a takeover of Warner Bros., Netflix makes a play for 21st century Hollywood’s throne
NBC News, Daniel Arkin (5/12/25)
Articles
Questions
- What are the similarities and differences between Netflix’ and YouTube’s business models? How close substitutes do you think they are?
- Do you think cinemas are a closer or more distant substitute to Netflix than YouTube?
- Which deal do you think raises the most competition concerns? What might be a possible remedy that could alleviate these concerns?
The approach towards mergers remains the most controversial area of competition policy. Some argue that policy makers in both the UK and EU have been too easily persuaded by the arguments put forward by firms and so have allowed too many mergers to proceed. Others claim that the opposite is true and that merger policy has prohibited mergers that should have been allowed to proceed. This, then, has a negative impact on investment, innovation, productivity and growth.
In recent years there has been more specific criticism of merger policy in the UK. The government has indicated that it wants the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to be less interventionist and take a more pro-growth approach.
In February 2025, in response to this criticism, the CMA launched its new ‘4 Ps’ approach to merger policy: Pace, Predictability, Proportionality and Process. Various changes to the investigation process have been proposed in the past 12 months using this framework.
Pace. The time taken by the CMA to initially assess a merger before deciding whether a Phase 1 investigation is necessary (i.e. the pre-notification procedure) was reduced from 65 to 40 working days. Also, the target to complete straightforward Phase 1 investigations was reduced from 35 to 25 days.
Predictability. The proposed merger guidelines, published in October 2025, provide more detail on (a) what criteria will be used to measure market shares when applying the ‘share of supply test’ (this is where the combined UK market share of two merging businesses is at least 25%, provided one business has a UK turnover of at least £10 million), and (b) the factors that are likely to lead to the competition authorities concluding that one business has gained ‘material influence over another’. Businesses had complained that there was too much uncertainty about the way the share of supply test and material influence were applied. The CMA is also considering greater alignment with other international regulators over decision making rather than its previous policy of acting independently. All these measures should increase the predictability of the investigation process.
Proportionality. Proportionality refers to the objective of addressing any competition issues in merger cases in a way that places the minimum burden on the businesses involved. To improve proportionality, the CMA has indicated that in future cases it will be more willing to use behavioural remedies – requiring firms to take or desist from certain actions. New draft guidelines identify more situations where the use of behavioural remedies may be appropriate. However, they also show that the CMA still views structural remedies (e.g. preventing the merger or requiring firms to demerge or to sell certain assets) as more effective in many situations. Another important measure to improve proportionality is the introduction of a new ‘wait and see’ approach to global mergers. The CMA will now wait to see if the actions taken by other competition authorities in global cases address any concerns in the UK market before deciding whether to launch a review.
Process. To improve the process, the CMA has announced plans to engage with businesses at a much earlier point in the process. For example, it has pledged to share its provisional thinking in the early stages of an investigation by implementing new ‘teach-in’ sessions and having more regular update meetings. Much earlier meetings that focus on possible remedies will also take place. This may make it possible for the CMA to assess the suitability of more complex remedies during a Phase 1 investigation rather than having to wait for a longer and more costly Phase 2 review. Phase 2 reviews will also no longer be managed by panels of independent experts. This role will now be carried out by the internal CMA board.
Some critics argue that the CMA has not fully considered the potential benefits of mergers in many cases. For example, a merger could (a) have procompetitive effects, known as rivalry enhancing efficiencies (REEs) and/or (b) benefits for consumers outside of the relevant market, known as relevant customer benefits (RCBs). In response to this criticism, the CMA is currently reassessing its approach to including evidence on REEs and RCBs.
The CMA is still currently consulting with interested parties about many of these proposed changes. It will be interesting to see what final decisions are made in the next couple of years.
Articles
- CMA consults on proposed changes to its merger remedies approach
CMA Press Release (15/10/25)
- New CMA proposals to drive growth, investment and business confidence
CMA Blog, Sarah Cardell (CMA Chief Executive) (13/2/25)
- Promoting competition and protecting consumers to drive growth and improve household prosperity
CMA Speech, Sarah Cardell (20/11/25)
- Steering the course: how the CMA is responding to the Government’s pro-growth agenda
Macfarlanes (21/2/25)
- 4Ps and 3 themes – An overview of the CMA’s merger remedies review
Hogan Lovells, Angus Coulter, Alice Wallace-Wright, Karman Gordon, and Denise Hotham-Kellner (1/4/25)
- CMA publishes updated guidance on UK merger procedure
Ashurst, Christopher Eberhardt, Emile Abdul-Wahab and Finlay Sadler-Wilson (11/11/25)
- Government ousts UK competition watchdog chair
BBC News, Simon Jack and Charlotte Edwards (21/1/25)
- UK competition watchdog drops Microsoft-OpenAI probe
BBC News, Imran Rahman-Jones (5/3/25)
- Does the government really know what it wants from the CMA?
The Guardian, Nils Pratley (13/2/25)
- This article is more than 9 months old ‘We must avoid a chilling effect’: the CMA chief on the UK’s pro-growth shift
The Guardian, John Collingridge (18/2/25)
- The CMA should be nudged on antitrust, not bullied
The Financial Times, John Gapper (6/2/25)
CMA documentation
Questions
- Of all the mergers considered by the CMA in 2024/25, find out what percentage were formally investigated. How many were blocked from taking place? Do you believe that this indicates that merger policy is too weak or too strong?
- What three criteria must be met for a business arrangement to be classed as a ‘relevant merger situation’ by the CMA?
- Identify some different methods that one business could use to gain material influence over the way another company operates.
- Outline the ‘turnover test’, the ‘share of supply test’ and the ‘hybrid test’.
- Discuss the potential advantages of using behavioural remedies as opposed to structural remedies in merger cases. Why has the CMA still preferred the use of structural remedies in most situations?
This Christmas, more people are considering giving second-hand (or ‘pre-loved’) goods as presents. This allows them to afford better-quality presents and to save money at a time when a large proportion of the population are finding that their finances are stretched. This continues a trend towards buying second-hand products – a trend driven by the rise of various online retailers, such as Vinted and Preloved, and a growing online presence of charity shops, as well as extensive use of established platforms, such as Facebook Marketplace, eBay, Depop, Gumtree and Nextdoor.
Clearly, people gain from buying and selling second-hand items – part of the ‘circular economy’. But what are the implications for gross domestic product (GDP)? After all, GDP is one of the main indicators of the size of an economy, and growth in GDP is probably the most widely-used measure of economic progress. Are second-hand transactions captured in GDP?
If you directly sell your own second-hand items, this does not count towards GDP. There is no new product being made. The items are only counted when they are first produced. Any service you provide to the purchaser (and to yourself) is in a similar category to housework, childcare, DIY and other services that people provide to themselves, household members and friends. But like such services, there is a strong argument that they should be.
Likewise, the environmental benefits (positive externalities) of recycling products, rather than throwing them away or hoarding them, are not counted. In fact, if reusing products causes fewer new products to be made, this would be counted as subtracting from GDP.
If, however, you set up a business by buying and selling second-hand items, the service you provide would contribute towards GDP. What would be counted would the value added to the product – captured through the difference in the purchase and selling prices. In fact, HMRC has warned people that buying and selling second-hand items is taxable, as it counts as self-employment for tax purposes. But it is only this value added that counts. If you buy an item on Vinted, only the value added by Vinted counts towards GDP.
As no production takes place, the purchase of second-hand items adds either nothing to GDP or just the service of a retailer. It is effectively just a transfer of goods and money. If buying second-hand items means that you buy fewer new ones, then that would cause GDP to fall if the response of firms is to produce fewer newer items. However, the person selling the second-hand items will gain revenue, which could be used to buy new items. If that increased production, that would boost GDP. The net effect on GDP of this transfer of goods and money in the second-hand market will be pretty small.
Yet, clearly, the second-hand market provides a welfare gain to both sellers and purchasers – a gain that is likely to grow as the use of second-hand markets increases. At Christmas time, it provides a timely warning of the limitations of using GDP to measure wellbeing.
Articles
- Giving toys another life with another child
Westmorland & Furness Council, News (18/11/25)
- ‘I make £1,000 a week with charity shop side hustle – I couldn’t afford Christmas without it’
Manchester Evening News, Lee Grimsditch and Hannah Cottrell (3/12/25)
- HMRC issues warning to anyone with money-making ‘side hustle’ ahead of Christmas
Manchester Evening News , Ryan Price (12/11/25)
- 12 tips for a low cost Christmas
Rest Less, Melanie Wright (14/11/25)
- I’ve saved over £100 on my girl’s Christmas gifts & got everything on her list including Disney dolls & Hey Dugee toys
The Sun, Becky Pemberton (25/11/25)
- Circular trade is growing, but will second-hand shopping be visible during the Christmas season?
Finnish Commerce Federation, Press Release (27/11/25)
- Shop secondhand, shred your veg and try ‘furoshiki’ wrapping: 14 easy ways to cut Christmas waste
The Guardian, Hannah Rochell (8/12/25)
- 13 Ways to Have a Sustainable Christmas This Year
Circular&Co., Adam Millett (1/12/23)
- The Role of Circular Economy in Driving Economic Growth: Evidence from EU Countries
Sage Open, Vladimir Radivojević, Tamara Rađenović and Jelena Dimovski (14/11/24)
- How to Have a Circular Economy Christmas: Deck the Halls, Sustainably
50 Shades Greener, Kiri Spanowicz (10/12/24)
- Twelve Economic Impacts of Christmas
City-REDI Blog, Birmingham University, Charlotte Hoole (22/12/16)
- Christmas 2025: Christmas Economics Explained
Plus500 (23/11/25)
Questions
- What other items or activities affecting human wellbeing are not counted in GDP?
- Name some goods and services that are produced, and hence are included in GDP, but which can be classed as ‘bads’.
- For what reasons might a country have a high GDP per capita but a poor average level of wellbeing?
- How might GDP figures be adjusted for international comparison purposes?
- Would it be possible to adjust GDP figures to take account of externalities in production (negative and positive)? If so, how?
- Production involves human costs. To what extent does GDP take this into account?
- What is meant by the circular economy? How might you have a ‘circular’ Christmas?
In my previous blog post on this site, I examined how AI-powered pricing tools can act as a ‘double-edged sword’: offering efficiency gains, while also creating opportunities for collusion. I referred to one of the early examples of this, which was the case involving Trod Ltd and GB Eye, where two online poster and frame sellers on Amazon used pricing algorithms to monitor and adjust their prices. However, in this instance there was also an explicit agreement between the firms. As some commentators put it, it was ‘old wine in new bottles‘, meaning a fairly conventional cartel that was simply facilitated through digital tools.
Since then, algorithms have increasingly become part of everyday life and are now embedded in routine business practice.
Some of the effects may have a positive effect on competition. For example, algorithms can help to lower barriers to entry. In some markets, incumbents benefit from long-standing experience, while new firms face significant learning costs and are at a disadvantage. By reducing these learning costs and supporting entry, algorithms could contribute to making collusion harder to sustain.
On the other hand, algorithms could increase the likelihood of collusion. For example, individual algorithms used by competing firms may respond to market conditions in predictable ways, making it easier for firms to collude tacitly over time.
Algorithms can also improve the ability of firms to monitor each other’s prices. This is particularly relevant for multi-product firms. Traditionally, we might expect these markets to be less prone to collusion because co-ordinating across many products is complex. AI can overcome this complexity. In the Sainsbury’s/Asda merger case, for example, the Competition and Markets Authority suggested that the main barrier to reaching and monitoring a pricing agreement was the complexity of pricing across such a wide range of products. However, the CMA also suggested that technological advances could increase its ability to do so in the future.
The ‘hub-and-spoke’ model
One of the other growing concerns is the ability of AI pricing algorithms to facilitate collusion by acting as a ‘hub’ in a ‘hub-and-spoke’ arrangement. In this type of collusion, competing firms (the ‘spokes’) need not communicate directly with one another. Instead, the ‘hub’ helps them to co-ordinate their actions.
While there have been only limited examples of an AI pricing algorithm acting as a hub in practice, what once seemed to be a largely theoretical concern has now become a live enforcement issue.
A very recent example is the RealPage case in the United States. The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust lawsuit against RealPage Inc. in August 2024, alleging that RealPage, acting as the ‘hub’, facilitated collusion between landlords (the ‘spokes’).
RealPage provided pricing software to numerous landlords, including the largest landlord in the USA, which manages around 950 000 rental units across the country. These landlords would normally compete independently in setting rental prices, discounts and lease terms to win consumers. However, by feeding competitively sensitive information that would not usually be shared between rivals into RealPage’s system, the software generated pricing recommendations that, according to the DOJ, led to co-ordinated rent increases across competing apartment complexes.
I
n the RealPage case, the authorities reported that they had access to internal documents and statements from the parties involved, which helped support their allegations. These included references within RealPage to helping landlords ‘avoid the race to the bottom’ and comments from a landlord describing the software as ‘classic price fixing’.
Evidence in these cases really matters because the standard of proof required to establish a hub-and-spoke arrangement is much higher than for traditional cases of explicit collusion. This is because it can be difficult to distinguish between legitimate and anti-competitive communication between retailers and suppliers. Also, proving ‘anti-competitive intent’ is inherently challenging.
Other competition authorities around the world are also turning their attention to these issues. For example, the European Commission recently announced that a number of investigations into algorithmic pricing are underway, signalling a clear shift toward more active scrutiny. As technology continues to advance, it is clear that algorithmic pricing will remain an area where both firms and authorities must move and adapt quickly.
Articles
Questions
- In what ways does the RealPage case differ from the earlier Trod Ltd and GB Eye Ltd case? Consider the roles played by the firms, the nature of the alleged co-ordination, and the extent to which pricing algorithms were used to facilitate the conduct.
- How might the use of pricing algorithms affect the likelihood of firms colluding, either explicitly or tacitly? Consider ways that algorithms may make collusion easier to sustain but also ways in which they may reduce its likelihood.
- Should firms be held liable for anti-competitive outcomes produced by algorithms that ‘self-learn’, even if they did not intend those outcomes? Explain why or why not.
Every year, world leaders gather to find ways of limiting global warming. The latest of these ‘COP’ meetings, COP30, is in Belém, Brazil from 10 to 20 November 2025. COP stands for ‘Conference of the Parties’, the decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Perhaps the best-known of these meetings was in Paris in 2015. This resulted in the Paris Agreement. This is a legally-binding international treaty to limit global warming to well below 2°C and preferably to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This would involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions and/or taking carbon absorbing measures. All UN countries except for Iran, Libya and Yemen are signatories to the agreement.
However, on coming to office in January 2025, President Trump announced that the USA will withdraw from the agreement in January 2026. Instead, he would prioritise fossil fuel production, under the mantra, ‘drill, baby, drill’. Previously he had claimed that global warming is a hoax concocted by China designed to undermine the competitive power of the USA.
Progress in reducing emissions and mitigating climate change
Since 2020, each country has been required to submit its own emissions-reduction targets, known as ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs), and the actions it will take to meet them. Every five years each country must submit a new NDC more ambitious than the last. New NDCs are due this year. As of 12 November, 112 of the 197 countries had submitted a new NDC (including the USA, China, the EU and the UK). These 112 countries account for around 71 per cent of global emissions.
Implementing all new NDCs would reduce global CO2 emissions by between 15 and 25 per cent from current levels by 2035. But this would merely reduce global warming to around 2.6°C above pre-industrial levels. Approximately 35 per cent emissions reductions by 2035 would be required to restrict global warming to 2°C and 55 per cent to restrict it to 1.5°C.
But implementing the Paris Agreement has still had a high degree of success. Without the action taken and being taken over the past 10 years, it is predicted that global temperatures by 2050 would rise by 3–3.5°C.
Rich countries are expected to provide finance to low-income countries. This is required to help such countries adopt green technologies and to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change (e.g. through irrigation schemes and flood defences). At COP29 in Azerbaijan, the ‘Baku Finance Goal’ was agreed. This is an agreement to provide climate finance of $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 to developing countries from all public and private sources.
The subsequent ‘Baku to Belém Roadmap’ provides a set of suggested actions for governments, financial institutions and the private sector to bridge the gap between current climate finance flows and the $1.3 trillion agreed to meet global climate goals. The roadmap is a central focus of the COP30 conference in Belém, with discussions between countries on how to translate the Baku finance goal into concrete, tangible actions and integrate it into formal decisions.
The role of Donald Trump
As well as announcing that the USA will withdraw from the Paris Agreement in January 2026, since coming to office in 2025, President Trump has given billions of dollars of tax cuts to fossil fuel firms and allowed drilling for oil and gas on federal lands. At the same time, he has described renewable energy as ‘a joke’ that will bankrupt countries and has slashed subsidies and tax breaks for solar and wind power, withdrawn permits for wind and solar farms, and cut funding for green energy research.
He wants the USA to be world leader in fossil fuel energy, calling on governments to buy US oil and gas, threatening some countries with tariffs if they do not. Already, Japan, South Korea and several European countries have agreed to buy huge quantities of US oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG). A worry is that other similarly inclined governments, such as Argentina, may roll back on their commitments to a green transition and instead boost their fossil fuel industries.
This gives added urgency to the Belém talks. It is crucial for the rest of the world to stick together in pushing ahead to combat global warming and in adopting and sticking to tough NDCs. It is also crucial for rich countries to support dlow-income countries in adopting climate-friendly investment and in measures to mitigate the effects of global warming.
The economics of climate change
Climate change is directly caused by market failures. One of the most important of these is that the atmosphere is a common resource: it is not privately owned; it is a global ‘commons’. Individuals and firms use it at a zero price. If the price of any good or service to the user is zero, there is no incentive to economise on its use. Thus for the emitter there are no private costs of using the atmosphere in this way as a ‘dump’ for their emissions and, in a free market, no incentive to reduce the climate costs.
And yet when firms emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere there are costs to other people. To the extent that they contribute to global warming, part of these costs will be borne by the residents of that country; but a large part will be borne by inhabitants of other countries.
These climate costs are external costs to the firm and are illustrated in the figure. It shows an industry that emits CO2. To keep the analysis simple, assume that it is a perfectly competitive industry with demand and supply given by curves D and S, which are equal to the marginal private benefits (MPB) and marginal private costs (MPC), respectively. There are no externalities on the demand side and hence MPB equals the marginal social cost (MSB). Market equilibrium is at point a, with output at Qpc and price at Ppc. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)
Assume that the emissions create a marginal cost to society equal to MECc. Assume that the MEC increases as output and total emissions increase. The MECc line is thus upward sloping. At the market price of Qpc, these external climate costs are equal to the purple vertical line. When these external climate costs are added to private costs, this gives a marginal social cost given by MSC = MPC + MECc. The gives a socially optimal level of output of the product of Q* at a price of P*, with the optimum point of c.
In other words, other things being equal, the free market overproduces products with climate externalities. If the output is to be reduced to the social optimum of Q*, then the government will need to take measures such as those advocated in the Paris Agreement. These could include imposing taxes on products, such as electricity generated by fossil fuels, or on the emissions themselves. Or green alternatives, such as wind power, could be subsidised.
Alternatively, regulations could be used to cap the production of products creating emissions, or caps on the emissions themselves could be imposed. Emissions permits could be issued or auctioned. Only firms in possession of the permits would be allowed to emit and the permits would cap emissions below free-market levels. These permits could be traded under a cap-and-trade scheme, such as the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme. Again, such schemes are advocated under the Paris Agreement.
COP30 and progress in tackling climate change
The USA is not attending COP30 in Brazil. Nor is the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. However, there are growing opportunities for translating aims into practical policies for specific sectors, such as energy, transport and carbon-intensive industries. These policies may require some degree of government action – taxes, subsidies or regulation – to internalise climate externalities. But increasingly, green alternatives are becoming economically viable without subsidies or with just initial government funding to ‘crowd in’ private investment, which will then attract further private capital as external economies of scale kick in. Increasingly investors will find profitable opportunities in climate-friendly projects.
At the same time, while the USA is moving away from climate-friendly investment (as least for the term of the Trump Presidency), China is moving in the opposite direction, with massive investment in solar panels, wind turbines, EVs and batteries – investment that is bringing down their cost and thereby encouraging their adoption around the world. Such technologies create huge opportunities for low-income countries to provide affordable energy and to create local jobs, both skilled and unskilled. It also helps them achieve much greater energy security by reducing their reliance on fossil fuel imports
Chinese advances in green technology are also providing a stimulus to other countries to invest in renewable industries to prevent Chinese dominance. The danger, however, of Chinese dominance in the renewable sector in high-income countries is that it may encourage them to impose tariffs on Chinese imports of EVs, solar panels, etc. to protect their own industries.
But despite the growing opportunities for profitable adoption of green technologies without government support, there is still much that governments need to do to encourage the process. COP meetings are an important forum for discussing such policies and holding governments to account for meeting or not meeting their targets.
The agreement
The agreement reached at the end of the conference marked relatively small progress. There was agreement to increase finance from developed to developing countries to help them adapt to climate change. This would triple to $120bn per year, up from the previously agreed doubling, but the target date was pushed back to 2035 from the previously agreed 2030.
By the end of the conference, 122 of the 197 countries had submitted a new NDC – still 75 countries short, although others are expected.
The conference also agreed to establish a ‘just transition mechanism (JTM)’ to ‘enhance international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing, and enable equitable, inclusive just transitions’. However, this is voluntary and no funding was attached, but it could act as the basis for future funding.
The biggest failure of the conference was probably the lack of agreement on phasing out of fossil fuels. This is not surprising given the opposition of the major oil producers. The hope is that the reduction in costs of renewable energy will drive the process anyway – a process that China is keen to accelerate with its investment in solar power and other renewable energy. One hopeful development, however, was the pledging of more than $9bn to halt deforestation, a major source of global warming. (See the Travers Smith article at the end of the Articles list below for a very useful summary of the outcome.)
Articles
- What is COP30 and why does it matter for the climate?
Chatham House, Anna Åberg (5/9/25)
- COP30 in Brazil: What is at stake for global collaboration on climate and nature?
World Economic Forum, Pim Valdre (5/11/25)
- What is COP30 and why does it matter?
CNN, Laura Paddison (11/11/25)
- Why COP 30 in Brazil Matters for a Thriving Economy and a Safe, Livable Planet
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS),Rachel Cleetus (7/11/25)
- Nationally Determined Contributions: The Action Plans Behind Global Efforts To Fight the Climate Crisis
Center for American Progress (CAP, Kalina Gibson and Courtney Federico (22/9/25)
- New climate pledges only slightly lower dangerous global warming projections
UN Environment Programme, Press Release (4/11/25)
- COP30: Trump and many leaders are skipping it, so does the summit still have a point?
BBC News, Justin Rowlatt (10/11/25)
- Trump dismisses clean energy as ‘a joke.’ But Americans deserve facts, not fear
USA Today, Mark McNees (23/9/25)
- The surprising countries pulling off stunningly fast clean energy transitions
CNN, Ella Nilsen and Samuel Hart (7/11/25)
Could the world’s biggest polluter be its savior against climate change?CNN, Simone McCarthy (17/11/25)
- COP 2025: Outlook and Implications for Investors
RankiaPro, Joanna Piwko, Allegra Ianiri, Marie Lassegnore and Jean-Philippe Desmartin (10/11/25)
Post-agreement
- Belém: yet another cop out
Zero Hour, Allan Gray (25/11/25)
- Cop30’s watered-down agreements will do little for an ecosystem at tipping point
The Guardian, Fiona Harvey, Jonathan Watts, Damien Gayle and Damian Carrington (22/11/25)
- COP30: Five key takeaways from a deeply divisive climate summit
BBC News, Justin Rowlatt and Matt McGrath, (25/11/25)
- COP30: What were the key outcomes?
Travers Smith (1/12/25)
Information and Data
Questions
- Summarise the Paris Agreement.
- Summarise the Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T.
- What incentives are there for countries to stick to their NCDs?
- Using a diagram similar to that above, illustrate how the free market will produce a sub-optimal amount of solar power because the marginal social benefit exceeds the marginal private benefit. How might the calculation be changing?
- How might game theory be used to analyse possible international decision making at COP conferences? How might this be affected by the attitudes of the Trump administration?
- Is it in America’s interests to cease investing in green energy and green production methods?