France Criticizes US for Avoiding Term 'Climate Change' at Antarctic Treaty Meeting

US Proposes Replacing "Climate Change" at Antarctic Treaty Talks, Sparking Backlash

A proposal by the United States to avoid using the term "climate change" at a key international meeting on Antarctica has drawn sharp criticism from France and other nations, who warn it undermines scientific credibility.

At the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, held from May 11 to 21, 2026, in Hiroshima, Japan, the United States delegation proposed using specific environmental changes—such as "sea ice reduction" or "impacts on emperor penguins"—instead of the broad term "climate change."

France immediately voiced strong concern, stating that omitting the term sets a dangerous precedent and threatens the committee’s scientific integrity. Most attending countries supported France’s position, citing prior Antarctic Treaty commitments to address climate change directly.

Antarctica is currently experiencing rapid environmental shifts, including reduced sea ice, warming waters, and mounting threats to wildlife. Scientists consistently link these changes to human-induced climate change.

The US administration has previously removed references to climate change from government websites, drawing criticism from environmental groups.

"Climate change affects all countries regardless of borders. Refusing to name it could call science into question."
— France

The US stressed the need to focus on "specific changes" to ensure "action-oriented discussions" rather than broad terminology.

The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC) responded firmly: "Climate change should not be censored. Editing words does not alter reality."

Former US diplomat Evan Bloom noted that while the US position reflects Trump administration policy, it was not confrontational, and the US did not veto climate-related discussions.

In a notable contrast, the US supported designating emperor penguins as a specially protected species—a move that was ultimately blocked by China and Russia.

This juxtaposition highlights the tension between acknowledging specific environmental impacts while avoiding the broader term that explains them.