Brake line cut

New US administration's proposed energy and climate policies will push back global efforts to put a cap on rising temperatures

Climate change has brought tremendous disruptions to human society, concurrently posing new challenges to global governance. The current global emissions reduction trajectory is insufficient to achieve the control target of a 1.5 C rise in global temperatures necessitating bolder actions by countries. The Paris Agreement consensus provided a net-zero vision for the world. The United Nations highlights the urgency of transitioning away from fossil fuels to meet the 1.5 C target set by the Paris Agreement. To achieve this, renewable energy capacity must triple by 2030, carbon dioxide emissions must fall by 43 percent by the same year (relative to 2019 levels), and net-zero emissions must be achieved by 2050. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorinated gases also require stringent reductions, reflecting the comprehensive nature of this global effort.

This transition, while crucial, is fraught with challenges. Political, economic and market factors are interwoven with geopolitical complexities. Both the United States and China are vying to position themselves as leaders in green investments by reducing associated costs, fostering demand and creating robust green markets. However, these goals are accompanied by disputes over fairness and inclusivity in the transition process, as concerns about "transition losers" and social welfare declines remain unresolved. Similarly, geopolitical tensions, particularly among the US, China and Europe, shape the direction and allocation of green investments, often prioritizing regions with long-term market potential while sidelining others.

Countries around the globe are taking varied approaches to achieve zero-carbon goals. Italy, for instance, has committed to phasing out all coal-fired power plants by 2025, a move mirrored by Canada, the United Kingdom and France, which aim for a 2030 deadline. On the other hand, Germany and Japan remain more reliant on coal, with around 26 percent and 27 percent of their electricity generation derived from this source, respectively. Meeting the energy storage demands of a renewable energy future will require a sixfold increase in global battery storage capacity by 2030.

The G7 nations have taken significant steps to phase out unabated coal-fired power plants by 2035, signaling their commitment to decarbonizing energy systems. However, these efforts are not without controversy. The European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), for example, has sparked debates over whether it serves as a legitimate climate action tool or as a form of trade protectionism. Developing nations, in particular, face increased pressure to restructure their energy systems, governance frameworks, and corporate strategies to comply with CBAM regulations. These dynamics underscore the intertwined nature of climate policy and global trade.

The new US administration's approach to climate and energy policy will herald a sharp departure from the global trajectory toward sustainability. Centered on the slogan "Drill, baby, drill", the policies proposed by Donald Trump will expand fossil fuel production while rolling back environmental regulations. This shift reflects broader trends in US climate governance, which has historically oscillated between progressive and regressive stances, often aligned with electoral cycles. The Republican Party, under Trump's leadership, has adopted a fundamentally conservative view, prioritizing short-term economic gains over long-term environmental goals.

Trump's leadership style has played a decisive role in shaping these policies. Known for his unpredictability and disregard for institutional consensus, he has emphasized deregulation as a means to boost domestic energy production. The fossil fuel industry, emboldened under his previous administration, gained significant influence, shaping policies that expanded coal, oil and natural gas exploration. These priorities were further reinforced by the increasing polarization in US politics, with climate policy becoming a clear dividing line between the Republicans and the Democrats.

One of Trump's most consequential actions during his first administration was withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement. Framing climate change as a "hoax", Trump argued that international climate commitments hindered economic growth and inflated energy costs. His administration dismantled key Obama-era initiatives, including vehicle fuel efficiency standards and the Clean Power Plan, while actively opposing renewable energy programs such as wind and solar power. Federal incentives for clean energy projects were scaled back, and policies supporting energy efficiency standards for appliances were repealed.

Trade policy became a key tool in Trump's energy strategy, reflecting his broader "America First" agenda. The administration imposed tariffs on clean energy imports, in particular targeting Chinese products such as electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels. These measures were designed to promote domestic manufacturing but risked disrupting global supply chains and raising costs for clean energy deployment. The imposition of these tariffs further strained US-China relations, intensifying competition in key areas of green technology.

Central to Trump's energy agenda is the goal of achieving energy independence. This involves expanding fossil fuel production through deregulation and offering substantial subsidies to the coal, oil and natural gas industries. The first Trump administration approved new drilling projects in offshore, deep-sea and Arctic regions, reversing many environmental protections. These measures were justified as necessary steps to reduce US energy costs, create jobs and strengthen national security. However, critics argued that such policies undermined global climate goals and increased the US' reliance on high-carbon energy sources.

Trump's policies have reverberated across the international stage, exacerbating tensions with China and the EU. The administration's opposition to multilateral climate agreements, coupled with its unilateral trade measures, has isolated the US from its key allies. At the same time, emerging areas of competition, such as the race to exploit Arctic resources and the development of green technologies, underscore the geopolitical stakes of energy transitions. Despite these challenges, opportunities for cooperation exist, particularly in areas such as hydrogen production, offshore wind energy and carbon capture technologies.

The policies proposed by the new Trump administration may highlight the complex interplay of domestic and international factors in shaping energy and climate strategies. Domestically, the administration's emphasis on deregulation and market-driven policies appeal to conservative constituencies but face criticism for undermining environmental protections. Internationally, Trump's protectionist stance will create frictions with the US' allies and competitors alike, complicating efforts to address global climate challenges collaboratively.

Looking forward, the path to a sustainable future will depend on the developing countries' green transition and multilateralism. China's climate policy will not only meet the needs of domestic green development, but also help China deeply integrate into global green industry chains and actively participate in the international supply of green public goods, to lead the net-zero vision and promote global ecological conservation and the building of a community of man-nature harmony. Collaborative efforts between China, the Global South and the EU, particularly in innovative technologies and subnational partnerships, offer a pathway to balance the expected withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement.

Yu Hongyuan is a professor and director of the Institute for Public Policy and Innovation at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. Xie Jianzhi is a research assistant at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. The authors contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.