American Politics and Climate Change Denial

Pradip Datta

In the past sixty years, the United States has made the most signif­cant contributions to the advancement of climate science. American scientist Charles David Keeling demonstrated, through his measurements at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, that carbon dioxide levels were steadily rising. Researchers from NASA's GISS and NOAA's Physical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory conducted field studies in the Arctic, Antarctic, and across every conti­nent, confirming the increase in emissions. And yet, the United States has also been the epicentre of the greatest amount of scepticism and conspiracy surrounding global warming.

Many even claimed that the rise in carbon dioxide levels was something to celebrate, arguing it would bring numerous benefits. The Greening Earth Society, created under the initiative of the Western Fuels Association, stated that the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels were beneficial to life on Earth. They claimed there was no reason to worry even if atmospheric CO2, concentrations reached 750 ppm, almost three times the pre-industrial level, because plants need a great deal of carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.

Although such views were widely disseminated without regard for scientific evidence, not a single scientific paper was published refuting the idea that human activity is driving global warming. In the early 2000s, Professor Naomi Oreskes conducted a study to understand the level of consensus among scientists on emissions. She surveyed 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1993 and 2003 on climate change. She selected 10% of those papers as a random sample and found that 75% of them stated human activity was responsible for warming. The remaining 25% raised questions about methodological challenges or the history of the climate. None of them argued against the idea that global warming is caused by human actions.

In March 2001, the Bush administration declared that climate science was too uncertain to justify adopting the Kyoto Protocol-a treaty among various nations, negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, to control emissions. They argued that accepting the protocol would hinder economic growth and harm the United States. When the US withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol initiative, the entire effort nearly collapsed. Among the countries listed in Annex I of the Protocol, the US alone was responsible for 34% of emissions. For the protocol to be enforced, the participating countries had to account for at least 55% of global emissions collectively. Most participant nations viewed the Kyoto Protocol as an important first step. Even though the protocol was set to expire in 2012, global emissions would not stabilise without long-term action. Even if all developed countries, including the US, adhered to it, carbon dioxide emissions were still projected to surpass 500 ppm within a few centuries. Moreover, without the participation of countries like China and India, emission reductions would not be effective. But when the US itself showed no urgency, countries like China and India had little incentive to bear the costs and responsibilities of emission reduction. Thus, it's fair to say that the US undermined the Kyoto Protocol from the start. Everyone understood that unless the US signed an international agreement, reducing emissions would be impossible -which is exactly what Bush wanted.

That same year, the Inter­governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Third Assessment Report. It stated: 'Since the beginning of global temperature measurements 135 years ago, the 1990s had been the warmest decade.

Between 1901 and 2000, global temperatures had increased by 0.6°C. Sea levels had risen; ice sheets and snow-covered regions had decreased. Crop yields in tropical areas would decline, water scarcity would become severe, and the number of people affected by vector-borne and waterborne diseases like malaria and cholera would increase. Rising sea levels and sediment buildup in rivers would worsen flooding'. While the IPCC's statement shook the world, the Bush administration remained unmoved. The White House under Bush was the central hub for spreading the false narrative that global warming wasn't happening. Scientists like James Hansen, who had long been warning the public about this grave threat, found their voices suppressed rather than heard. In 2001, Bush appointed his favourite oil industry insider, Philip Cooney, to oversee environmental policy at the White House. Prior to that, Cooney had spent six years at the American Petroleum Institute. His job was to ensure that no international consensus formed against global warming. He was instrumental in spreading doubt about the carbon emissions from oil and coal.

Government Suppression of Science
In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a 263-page document titled Report on the Environment. The report stated that due to steadily increasing greenhouse gas emissions, America's temperature could rise by 1.7 to 5 degrees Celsius during the 21st century. President George W Bush dismissed the findings of this years-long research in one stroke, calling it mere bureaucratic opinion.

In 2003, the EPA published another summary of climate science in its Report on the Environment. The White House tried to alter the "Global Warming" chapter of this report. They inserted parts of a study funded by the American Petroleum Institute into the document. An internal EPA memo noted that after interference by Philip Cooney, the EPA report "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus."

When the draft report was released to the public, it was found that the section on global warming caused by greenhouse gases had been removed entirely.

On June 8, 2005, The New York Times reported that Philip Cooney had repeatedly edited the EPA report-removing and adding words and lines at his discretion, despite not being a scientist. Yet he had the authority to revise and edit the EPA's findings. When internal White House documents were published by The New York Times, it was revealed that Cooney had deleted entire sections of the EPA report that described how global warming could pose severe risks to American citizens. As a result of the scandal, Cooney was forced to resign.

Within two days, it was reported that Cooney had joined the oil giant ExxonMobil in a senior position. This illustrates the deep ties between the fossil fuel industry and opposition to climate action.

It is worth noting here that the American tobacco company Brown & Williamson had previously engaged in similar misinformation campaigns in defence of tobacco. It came to light during a 1960s court case that the company knew millions of people were dying from smoking. An internal memorandum from the company stated: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public."

Under President George W Bush, the US administration repeatedly ignored impartial scientific advice, prioritising the interests of powerful lobbies over public welfare. On February 18, 2004, a statement was released bearing the signatures of 60 leading scientists, including 20-Nobel laureates, accusing the Bush administration of deliberately disregarding scientific counsel and making biased policy decisions that undermined the public good.

Frustration within the American scientific community against Bush was mounting. On June 21 of the same year, 48 American Nobel Prize-winning scientists issued a public appeal to vote for Senator John Kerry in the presidential election, emphasising the need for science and technology to be used responsibly in service of the public interest. Of these 48, 19 were Nobel laureates in physics, 12 in chemistry, and 17 in medicine.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon report that same year warned that rising temperatures could lead to conflicts over natural resources, potentially resulting in the loss of control over nuclear weapons. It predicted large-scale unrest and conflict, posing severe threats to US national security. Additionally, experts warned that climate change could displace millions of people, sparking violent clashes over vital resources like water between individuals and groups.

During the 2000 election campaign, George W Bush had promised to reduce carbon emissions. This pledge was shaped into the "Climate Stewardship Act" by Senator John McCain. The Act aimed to reduce emissions to the levels of the year 2000 by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2016. However, the White House vehemently opposed the bill and on both occasions it was introduced in the Senate. It was defeated in 2003 by a vote of 55-43 and again in 2005 by 60-38.

  In December 2004, a report by the US National Commission on Energy Policy expressed concern over greenhouse gas emissions and discussed technologies for capturing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. That same month, at an international conference in Buenos Aires, representatives from various countries convened to discuss steps for reducing emissions beyond the Kyoto Protocol. However, the US delegation obstructed the discussions to such an extent that they were formally asked to clarify what kind of meeting formats would be acceptable to them. In response, the Americans submitted a half-page list of restrictive conditions. These included that each session be held for only one day, conducted only once, limited solely to the exchange of existing national policy information, and, "if there were to discuss the future, the future would have to be barred from discussion."

The American memo left other delegates stunned. That same year, at the G8 summit, French President Jacques Chirac remarked:

"It is as clear as daylight that global warming has begun. We must take responsible action. If we do nothing, we will have to bear the consequences. I had the opportunity to discuss this with the President of the United States. You can imagine, if I say I was able to convince him that would be a complete exaggeration." In 2005, the following year, the G8 summit was chaired by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Months ahead of the summit, Blair had been trying to persuade President Bush that immediate action was necessary. A few weeks before the summit, the science academies of the G8 nations, along with those of China, India, and Brazil, issued a joint statement declaring that the evidence for climate change was clear and growing.

Despite all this, President Bush gave no positive response. James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, stated at a discussion in London: "We are still working on the issue of causation-the extent to which humans are a factor." The administration officials were attempting to weaken any proposals for joint action with other countries.

At the same time-in 2005, the United States was emitting nearly twice as much accumulated carbon dioxide as China, four times as much as Russia, six times as much as India, and five times as much as Japan.

In February 2005, James Inhofe, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, gave a speech titled "An Update on the Science of Climate Change." According to Inhofe, global warming was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, because many people believed in the concept of man-made warming with religious conviction. Inhofe repeatedly cited American fiction author Michael Crichton in support of his opinion.

During the 1980s, various regions in the southeastern United States experienced acid rain. The government responded by implementing a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide (SO2), making it financially punitive for those who emitted more and financially beneficial for those who emitted less. A similar system could have been applied to carbon dioxide emissions. The European Union had already begun implementing such a policy, but the US Congress never approved it. Bill Clinton tried to introduce it during his presidency, and Barack Obama attempted to do so later.

In 2006, after gaining a majority in the Senate, the Democrats informed Congress that the United States' energy policy would be changed. Despite President Bush's reluctance, they pledged to tackle climate change and reduce oil imports. While no significant new measures to reduce carbon emissions were introduced, an energy bill was passed that helped reduce gasoline consumption in the US. However, the main reason the bill passed was that many members of Congress supported ethanol production, because they had business interests tied to it. The bill mandated that, by 2022, gasoline retailers would have to sell seven times more ethanol than before. Both major parties-Republicans and Democrats-supported this policy. When the bill passed in the Senate in June 2006, it also proposed increasing the average fuel mileage of vehicles from 25 miles per gallon (1 gallon=3.785 litres, and 1 mile=1.609 kilometres) to 35 miles per gallon in phases. Although the government heavily subsidised ethanol made from crops, the actual reduction in emissions would be minimal.

Meanwhile, without any initiative from the federal administration, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was launched with support from several American and Brazilian companies. CCX   members voluntarily formed a coalition to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases. Participating institutions and companies that exceeded their emission-reduction targets could earn financial benefits by selling carbon credits. Those that failed to meet their targets would have to buy carbon credits from others. This system not only encouraged emission reductions but also provided financial incentives. Major corporations like Ford, Rolls Royce, IBM, and Motorola participated in this pilot programme. The business community, too, was increasingly concerned about global warming. Many believed that if mandatory carbon emission reductions were implemented in the near future, being technologically prepared in advance would give them a competitive edge.

Several US states also implemented similar mandatory carbon trading systems. In the Northeast, the Regional Green­house Gas Initiative was established. Many large companies improved energy efficiency and reduced emissions in their production processes. Numerous universities, schools, municipali­ties, and non-profit organisations also joined the CCX initiative.

On the other hand, some old friends, several members of the Republican Party, and international leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel and Britain's Tony Blair tried to persuade President Bush to take action. Still, Bush refrained from taking any steps that would discourage power generation from coal and oil or promote renewable energy. Finally, when he was on the verge of losing power, he mentioned greenhouse gas emissions as the cause of climate change in his 2008 State of the Union address.

In 2006, the Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth by former US Vice President Al Gore warned the world that cities like New York and Miami could be submerged under 20 feet of water in the future. The following year, in 2007, global political leaders began taking the issue of global warming much more seriously. So much so that German journalists nicknamed Chancellor Angela Merkel the "Climate Chancellor." Merkel announced that Europe would reduce its carbon emissions by 20% by the year 2020. British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that the UK would reduce emissions by 60% by 2050. Making climate change a central political issue, Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister of Australia in December that year, marking the first time the world had a "green" prime minister. At that time, the politics of global warming was at its peak.

In the same year, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment Report. The report stated:

"Warming of the climate sys­tem is unequivocal. It is very likely-more than 90% certainty that the increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is due to the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations. The rise in average air and ocean temperatures and the widespread melting of snow and ice make this abundantly clear. From 1961 to 2003, sea levels rose at an average rate of 1.8 mms per year, and from 1993 to 2003, the rate increased to 3.1 mms per year.

Over the past 100 years, the average global temperature has risen by 0.74°C. Since 1961, it has been observed that over 80% of the additional heat has been absorbed by ocean water, warming to depths of at least 3,000 metres. Between 1993 and 2003, melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica also contributed to sea-level rise. In the last 100 years, the average temperature in the Arctic has increased at twice the global average. Arctic sea ice has decreased by 8%. During summer, this reduction reaches 22%.

Since the 1970s, the intensity of North Atlantic hurricanes has increased, correlat­ing with warmer sea surface temperatures. While similar trends have been observed in other regions, the data there is less reliable. It is very likely that the intensity of hurricanes will continue to increase in the 21st century. Wind patterns are changing. Precipitation patterns are also shifting, with more rainfall in higher latitudes and less in lower latitudes. The frequency and severity of droughts are increasing. Nights are becoming warmer. Since the 1990s, glaciers have been retreating. Rainfall patterns and wind currents are shifting in the Arctic. Tropical cyclone activity is projected to increase. From 1995 to 2006, 11 out of 12 years were the warmest on record."

Even if one assumes that the concentration of greenhouse gases and airborne particulate matter remains the same as it was in 2000, the temperature is still expected to rise by at least 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade. Due to global warming, the increase in atmospheric water vapour has led to more incidents of intense rainfall in many areas. Over the last fifty years, winters have shortened and summers have lengthened. Heat waves are occurring more frequently. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 379 ppm, the highest level in the last 650,000 years.

Even after the publication of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, the Bush administration did not take significant action on climate change. However, it began to show some encouragement for wind and solar energy production.

After Barack Obama assumed office for his first term in 2008, he was unable to establish a comprehensive national climate policy through Congress. Nevertheless, he succeeded in doubling fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. Additionally, energy efficiency standards were raised for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, refrigerators, and HVAC systems. Renewable energy projects with a combined capacity of 10,000 megawatts were approved for development on federal lands. In 2009, a landmark clean energy bill triggered what was effec­tively a small-scale energy revolution. A total of $90 billion was invested in research and development across multiple areas: wind, solar, geothermal electricity, advanced bio-fuels, electric vehicles, smart grids, clean coal, and low-emission technologies.

Under Obama's first term, various federal agencies collectively reduced emissions by 15%, equivalent to the emissions of approximately 1.5 million cars. Although combating climate change had long been one of Obama's declared goals, his efforts were constrained during his first term due to a major overhaul of the US healthcare system and, in 2010, the Democratic Party's loss of control in the House of Representatives, which limited further progress on climate policy.

According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), the country's energy infrastructure is becoming increasingly vulnerable due to climate change. Weather-related problems are worsening. The disruptions to the power supply in New York and New Jersey during Hurricane Sandy at the end of 2012 were seen as a warning of future catastrophes. Every part of the American energy system, oil wells, hydroelectric dams, nuclear reactors, is expected to come under increasing strain in the future due to stronger storms, higher temperatures, more frequent droughts, and rising sea levels.

These effects are already becoming visible. During droughts, nuclear and thermal power plants are being forced to shut down or reduce output. Low water levels are delaying coal and oil transport via waterways. Floods and storms are submerging ports, refineries, pipelines, and rail yards. Severe storms and wildfires are damaging transformers and power distribution lines.

In the US, July 2012 was recorded as the hottest month up to that point. Alongside extreme temperatures came a record-breaking drought, se­erely impacting the southwestern part of the country. Water shortages affected both nuclear and thermal power plants. Hydropower output also declined during the heat. Alarmingly, about 60% of the nation's thermal power plants are located in regions that are expected to face water scarcity due to climate change.

In September 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The report unequivocally stated:

Warming of the atmosphere and oceans is evident. Between 1880 and 2012, the average global temperature increased by 0.85 degrees Celsius. The period from 1983 to 2013 was the warmest in the last 1,400 years. Since the 1950s, the rate of sea level rise has been unprecedented. Between 1901 and 2010, the sea level rose by approximately 19 centimetres. Since the mid-19th century, the average rise in sea level has significantly exceeded the two-thousand-year average. From 1971 to 2010, the upper ocean, up to a depth of 700 metres, warmed rapidly. During this period, the average temperature of the top 75 metres of the ocean increased at a rate of 0.11 degrees Celsius per decade.

The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide, has risen to levels unmatched in the last 800,000 years. About 30% of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been absorbed by the oceans, resulting in increased ocean acidity. Glaciers are melting at an accelerated pace. It is stated with high confidence that the mass of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica has been continuously decreasing over the past two decades. Springtime snow cover in the Arctic and the Northern Hemisphere is also steadily shrinking. The oceans will continue to warm, and this heat will spread into the deep sea, affecting ocean currents. The current rate of sea level rise is likely to increase even further.

Climate change will also lead to increased carbon dioxide production, and as oceans absorb more of it, acidity will continue to rise. The global water cycle will change. Seasonal disparities will increase in both rainy and arid regions, although some regional variations may occur.

The future temperature of the Earth depends on the cumulative concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans. This means that even if emissions stop, climate change will continue. If the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide doubles, the temperature is projected to rise by a minimum of 1.5°C and a maximum of 4.5°C. In the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the lower bound of this estimate was 2°C.

At the start of his second term in January 2013, in his State of the Union address, President Obama said:

"If Congress does not act swiftly to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to implement whatever steps we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution. I will push our society to better prepare for the impacts of climate change and to accelerate the transition toward sustainable energy. In moving away from heavily polluting energy sources, America will increasingly rely on gas as a relatively cleaner fuel." In the first week of June 2013, President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set carbon emission limits for all new thermal power plants starting that year and for all existing thermal power plants by 2014. At that time, thermal power plants were responsible for 40% of America's carbon emissions. Obama announced that all subsidies for fossil fuels would be discontinued. He also declared that government funding for alternative energy production would be increased so that wind and solar power generation would double by 2020. It was revealed that the federal government aimed to raise the share of renewable energy use from the existing 7.5% to 20% by 2020.

Additionally, the government would launch a Quadrennial Energy Review and a climate data initiative, to collect and publicly disseminate information related to climate and energy.

According to Obama: 'after scientific analysis, the application of chemistry and physics, and billions of measurements, the question is no longer whether we need to act. The real question is whether we have the courage to act before it's too late'.

He stated that if it was found that the oil stored in Canada's tar sands, intended to be transported to America's Gulf Coast through the controversial Key­stone pipeline-would significantly increase emissions, and then he would direct the State Department not to approve it.

The experience of Britain with gas use, starting from the end phase of this plan, was not very pleasant. The country discovered large natural gas reserves in the North Sea. The government found it both economically and politically attractive. At that time, the miners' strike against the Margaret Thatcher government was at its peak. The government and industrial sectors began using gas as an alternative to coal. As a result, the importance of the coal industry declined rapidly. Numerous gas-fired power plants were set up across the country.

However, there's a difference between what nature provides and how much can be extracted. Eventually, a shortage of gas extraction arose. Because of the country's overwhelming dependence on gas for electricity production, Britain had to start importing gas and became vulnerable to fluctuations in gas prices. Once it was commonly said that Britain had ample gas, but now the country is concerned about energy security.

Therefore, it also took time to ensure that the same kind of risk would not arise in America in the future. However, if the goal of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050, as stated by Obama and other leaders, is to be met, America will also have to reduce its reliance on gas in the future.

Experts believed that with this changed approach by the US, emissions in 2020 would be 17% lower than in 2005. But then Republican Donald Trump became President after Obama. That not only set America back but caused serious harm to the world's climate.

Historically, there has always been a pendulum swing between Democratic and Republican administrations. Four years after Donald Trump came to power; Democratic President Joseph R Biden Jr spent the next four years trying to reverse his predecessor's systematic dismantling of environmental policies. However, the damage caused by the removal or weakening of more than 100 environmental regulations related to air and water pollution could not be fully undone. While emissions controls can help restore air quality and water clarity, greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, meaning that such corrective measures do not bring proportional benefits to the climate. The greenhouse gases released during Trump's term will trap heat for decades. We lost several crucial years in the fight against climate change.

The world continues to pay the price for America's four-year disregard for climate policy. In 2016, the year Trump was elected, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were at 400 parts per million. Scientists had warned that surpassing the 400-ppm threshold would make it extremely difficult to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Yet Trump prioritised economic growth over emission targets, arguing that climate and other environmental regulations harmed job creation. However, his retreat from climate action did not strengthen the economy. Since early 2019, jobs in the auto sector declined, even though vehicle emissions standards were rolled back. Domestic coal production in 2019 was the lowest since 1978. In September 2020, the French government blocked a $7 billion deal to purchase American natural gas, citing that methane-rich gas produced without regulatory control was extremely harmful to the climate.

Though Biden has rejoined the Paris Agreement and is attempting to establish new climate regulations for the United States, he has not returned to the stricter reforms of the Obama era. Trump not only dismantled US climate policy within four years but also inspired other countries to do the same. The authority of federal agencies to regulate industries was eroded. It became difficult for Biden to implement strong climate rules through executive power, especially because the newly composed Supreme Court with its 6-3 conservative majority, made it even harder to enforce climate policy compared to four years earlier.

America's influence over global climate discussions also diminished due to Trump's harmful policies and the withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement. This slowed down global efforts to reduce emissions and encouraged other governments to weaken their own environmental regulations by following the U.S. example. Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro, for instance, styled himself after Trump when it came to climate policy. Australia's Scott Morrison, too, promoted coal usage and denied the link between climate change and wildfires, much like Trump. Still, several major countries moved forward with emissions reduction plans without waiting for the United States. China, the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060. Japan made a similar pledge for 2050.

The United Nations' latest annual Emissions Gap Report, which evaluates global pledges against the actions needed to combat climate change, warns that without more aggressive efforts from governments world­wide to reduce emissions, global temperatures could rise by 3.1 degrees Celsius above pre-indus-trial levels by the year 2100.

In 2023, the United States produced a record amount of oil. Despite a temporary pause on new permits for gas export terminals, the US has become the world's leading exporter of natural gas. Projects already approved and under construction are set to nearly double the country's export capacity by 2027.

The election of Republican Donald Trump as President in November 2024 now poses a renewed threat to global climate initiatives that had begun to gain momentum. Just ahead of the US election, in October, Trump hosted a dinner with over 20 top oil and gas company executives, seeking support for his campaign. He reportedly told them that they should contribute $1 billion to his campaign because, if elected, he would lift the restrictions placed during President Biden's term on oil and gas drilling and exports. He also promised to permit expanded exploration of fossil fuels on federal lands and to roll back newly enacted vehicle emission rules aimed at reducing pollution.

Trump had been publicly opposing Biden's energy and environmental policies for months. During his first term in office, he had repealed or weakened numerous emissions regulations, which Biden later sought to restore and strengthen. Trump is dismantling those rules once more.

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump officially signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement once again.

He has also issued an execu­tive order to halt or delay funding distribution under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was intended to support electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure development. This move includes scrapping EV-related mandates and eliminating California-specific emission standards.

For decades, California has enjoyed an exemption under the Clean Air Act, allowing it to enforce stricter environmental laws than federal standards. Manufacturers and industries operating in California must comply with these tougher regulations.

However, not all components of the IRA may be overturned, since major portions of the IRA benefit Republican senators, and their states have been reaping economic advantages from those investments.

With Trump's return to power, the door has opened for rolling back tax credits for EVs. Even before the election, he had declared his intention to end benefits for electric cars. As a result, EV production in the US is expected to decline. Chinese competitors will likely be kept out of the US market due to potential tariffs on EVs. Both China and Europe are facing increasing tariffs on EV exports.

The Trump administration aims to eliminate greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles. The US Environmental Protec­tion Agency (EPA) had established in 2009 that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, a legal foundation for regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act. The current EPA has proposed repealing this endangerment finding, arguing that the law does not mandate such regulation. Experts believe that changes to emission policies, vehicle standards, and the rollback of IRA funding could face legal challenges.

The Trump administration has already dismantled several climate-focused institutions created during Biden's term, including the White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy, the Environmental Justice Advisory Council, and the National Climate Task Force.

It has reversed the policy of reducing fees for clean energy projects on federal land by 80% and accelerated permits for oil and gas expansion on those lands, effectively trying to limit the growth of renewable energy.

Through executive orders and EPA directives, Trump's administration has reopened coal mining leases, sought to increase coal-fired power plants, and fast-tracked oil and gas approvals. The Trump administration has proposed repealing Biden-era strict emission standards for coal and natural gas power plants.

During his previous presidency, Trump had also cut green subsidies and increased fossil fuel subsidies. Even if he cuts green subsidies again, countries like Europe, China, and India are unlikely to reduce their investments in renewable energy, as such investments have proven economically beneficial and aligned with national development goals.

The agenda for Trump's second term is to systematically repeal climate regulations from the Biden era via executive orders-removing incentives for EVs and renewable energy, altering emission standards and climate justice programmes, and promoting fossil fuel expansion.

By prioritising fossil fuels over green energy, it aims to reduce incentives for clean energy and is undoing environmen­tal regulations from Biden's time. This is likely to increase emissions in the US and slow down the growth of renewable energy capacity.

As before, Trump's return may encourage other countries to follow his lead. As a result, the goal of achieving a carbon-free US electricity grid by 2035 is now likely to remain out of reach.

References:

1. Arjun Makhijani, Carbon free and nuclear free: A roadmap for U.S. energy policy, IEER Press and RDR Books, 2007
2. An Open Letter to the Ameri¬can People, p.2004.org, 21 June 2004, https://p2004.org/kerry/kerrynobel062104.html
3. Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making, 18 Febru¬ary 2004, https://cdn.american progress.org/wp-content/up-loads/kf/UCS statement.pdf
4. Full of sound and fury: The legislature grapples with a be¬wildering array of ideas about Energy, The Economist, https:/ /www.economist. com/united-states/2007/07/12/full-of-sound-and-fury economist.com,
Jul 14, 2007
5. Edward J Dunplea, Laurie Galler, Ian Kraucunas, Martha C McConnell, Claudia Mengelt et al., "Responding to climate change Americas cli¬mate choices lays out options", Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Devel¬opment, 14 March 2011, Vol¬ume 53, Number 2, http:// dx.doi.org/10.108 0/ 00139157.2011.554501
6. Andrew C. Revkin, "Scientists see big impacts on U.S. eco¬systems from global warming," The New York Times, 19 De¬cember 2012
7. Juliet Eilperin, Robert Redford stars in ad calling on Obama to move faster on curbing glo¬bal warming, The Washing¬ton Post, 11 June 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/ news/post-politics/wp/2013/06/ 11/robert-redford-stars-in-ad-calling-on-obama-to-move-faster-on-curbing-global-warm-
ing/ Jun 11, 2013
8. Elizabeth Kolbert, "Politics: Obamas overdue climate-change speech," The New Yorker, 25 June 2013, https:/ /www.newyorker.com/tech/an-nals-of-technology/power-poli-tics-obamas-overdue-climate-change-speech
9. "An important step on global warming," Editorial, The New York Times, 22 September 2013, https://www.nytimes.
com/2013/09/23/opinion/an-important-step-on-global-warming.html
10. David Kashi, Supreme Courts EPA ruling a setback for Obamas climate action plan to reduce carbon emissions by 17%?
11. International Business Times, 16 October 2013, https:// www.ibtimes. com/supreme-courts-epa-ruling-setback-obamas-climate-action-plan-reduce-carbon-emissions-17-1428542
12. "Congress turns a blind eye to global warming," The Washington Post, 20 October 2013, https://www.washington post.com/opinions/congress-turns-a-blind-eye-to-global-warming/2 013/10/2 0/b5e42594-36b8-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html
13. David Jolly and Chris Buckley, "U.S. and China find convergence on climate issue," The New York Times, 21 November 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/world/us-and-china-find-convergence-on-climate-issue.html
14. Andrew Freedman, "US polar vortex may be example of glo¬bal warming," The Guardian, 7 January 2014, https://www. theguardian.com/environment/ 2014/jan/07/us-polar-vortex-global-warming
15. Joe Romm, "National Academy of Sciences delivers highly readable climate change warn¬ing," Think Progress, 27 Feb¬ruary 2014, https://archive.thinkprogress.org/national-academy-of-sciences-delivers-highly-readable-climate-change-warning-6c0318008b7b/
16. Asaf Shalev, Michael Phillis, Elah Feder and Sussane Rust, "How Obama's climate legacy is weakened by investment in dirty fuel," The Guadian, 30 November 2016, https:// www.theguardian.com/envi-ronment/2016/nov/30/us-fossil-fuel-investment-obama-cli-mate-hange-egacy
17. Coral Davenport, What Will Trump's Most Profound Legacy Be? Possibly Climate Damage, The New York Times, 9 November 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/ 2020/11/09/climate/trump-legacy-climate-change.html
18. Nadja Popovich, Livia Albeck-Ripka and Kendra Pierre-Louis, "The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than100 Environmental Rules. Here's the Full List," The New York Times, 20 January 2021,
https://www.nytimes.com/in- teractive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
19. Trevor Higgins, Rachel Chang, and Devon Lespier, "The Biden administration has taken more climate action than any other in history," Center for American Progress, 6 March 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/
20. Dan Lashof, Tracking progress: Climate action un¬der the Biden administration, World Resources Institute, 30 July 2024, https://www.wri. org/insights/biden-administra-tion-tracking-climate-action-progress
21. Gloria Dickie, "Climate change: UN report says planet to warm by 3.1 C without greater action," The Print, 25 October 2024, https://theprint.in/world/climate-set-to-warm-by-3-1-c-without-greater-ac-tion-un-report-warns/2327180/

[Pradip Datta <pradip.p.datta@yahoo.co.in>]

Back to Home Page

Frontier Autumn Number
Vol 58, No. 14 - 17, Sep 28 - Oct 25, 2025