|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Climate change is no longer a distant environmental concern; it is a defining political, economic, and security issue of the 21st century. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the United States, the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases and a country whose climate decisions ripple across the global system. In 2025 and early 2026, a series of developments — rising emissions, expanded fossil fuel ambitions, and the return of Donald Trump’s climate-sceptic agenda — have brought the US climate debate to a critical turning point.
To talk honestly about US climate change policy, we must also talk about Donald Trump. His renewed influence over US environmental policy has reshaped America’s domestic emissions trajectory and weakened international climate cooperation at a moment when scientists warn that time is running out to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Recent reporting highlights four interlinked trends that make this conversation unavoidable:
- Cold weather and energy-hungry data centres have driven up US greenhouse gas emissions
- Donald Trump has withdrawn the US from key climate treaties and international bodies
- US carbon pollution rose in 2025, reversing years of emissions reductions
- US plans to expand oil production — including exploiting Venezuelan reserves — could consume a major share of the global carbon budget
Together, these developments reveal a deeper crisis in American climate leadership.
Donald Trump and the Return of Climate Rollback Politics
Donald Trump has long rejected the scientific consensus on climate change. During his first presidency, he described climate change as a “hoax,” rolled back environmental regulations, and withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement. His return to power has reignited fears of a full-scale dismantling of US climate policy.
In early 2026, Trump’s administration announced the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the parent treaty that underpins global climate negotiations, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These moves represent one of the most dramatic retreats from international climate cooperation by any major economy.
This withdrawal is not symbolic. The UNFCCC coordinates global climate action, while the IPCC provides the scientific assessments that inform climate policy worldwide. By leaving these institutions, the US has effectively distanced itself from the world’s primary mechanisms for tackling climate change mitigation and adaptation.
For critics, this confirms a broader Trump climate doctrine: prioritising short-term fossil fuel expansion over long-term climate stability. Supporters argue the move protects American sovereignty and economic interests. But for the rest of the world, the decision signals that the US — once a central player in global climate diplomacy — is stepping back at a moment of escalating climate risk.
US Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise in 2025
One of the clearest indicators of this shift is the data itself. In 2025, US greenhouse gas emissions increased, reversing a downward trend that had persisted for several years. This rise marked a significant setback for US climate goals and underscored the fragility of recent emissions reductions.
Several factors contributed to this increase. A particularly cold winter drove up demand for heating, much of it supplied by natural gas and fuel oil, both major sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Higher energy prices also made coal-fired power generation more economically attractive, leading to increased coal use in parts of the country.
However, structural factors played an equally important role. Under Donald Trump’s renewed leadership, regulatory pressure on fossil fuel producers was eased, environmental standards weakened, and incentives for renewable energy slowed. These policy shifts made it easier for carbon-intensive energy sources to rebound.
The rise in emissions is especially concerning because it outpaced economic growth. For years, the US had begun to decouple economic expansion from carbon pollution — a central goal of climate policy. The 2025 data suggests that without sustained political commitment, that decoupling can quickly unravel.
Cold Weather, Data Centres, and the Energy Demand Crisis
Beyond politics, the emissions spike also highlights a growing structural challenge: energy demand in a digital economy.
The US is now home to tens of thousands of data centres powering cloud computing, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency mining, and streaming services. These facilities operate 24 hours a day and consume enormous amounts of electricity. In 2025, data centres accounted for a growing share of US power demand — much of it still supplied by fossil fuels.
Cold weather amplified this effect. As heating demand surged during winter months, electricity grids came under strain. In regions where renewable energy capacity and storage were insufficient, utilities relied on coal and gas to meet demand.
This exposes a critical weakness in US climate strategy: while clean energy capacity is growing, it is not yet expanding fast enough to keep pace with rising demand from new technologies. Without aggressive investment in renewable energy, grid modernisation, and energy efficiency, emissions will continue to fluctuate — or rise — even as clean technologies advance.
Donald Trump’s climate agenda has largely ignored this challenge. Instead of aligning digital growth with clean power, his administration has emphasised deregulation and expanded fossil fuel production, further entrenching carbon-intensive infrastructure.
The Paris Agreement and America’s Retreat from Climate Leadership
The Paris Agreement on climate change remains the cornerstone of global efforts to limit warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the agreement, countries commit to nationally determined contributions and regularly increase ambition over time.
Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement — both during his first term and again in his current administration — has severely damaged US credibility. Although states, cities, and corporations have attempted to fill the leadership gap, the absence of federal commitment limits the scale and coordination of climate action.
This retreat has consequences beyond emissions. Climate change is increasingly recognised as a national security threat, contributing to food insecurity, migration, geopolitical instability, and economic disruption. By stepping away from global climate governance, the US risks isolating itself from collective efforts to manage these risks.
Moreover, the withdrawal sends a powerful signal to other countries: if the world’s largest economy and one of its biggest emitters will not fully commit to climate action, why should others?
Fossil Fuels, Venezuela, and the Global Carbon Budget
Perhaps the most alarming signal of US climate direction lies in its renewed commitment to fossil fuels — not only domestically, but internationally.
Recent analysis suggests that US-backed plans to exploit Venezuela’s vast oil reserves could consume up to 13% of the remaining global carbon budget consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Venezuela’s oil is among the most carbon-intensive in the world, requiring energy-heavy extraction and processing.
From a climate perspective, this represents a profound contradiction. Scientists have repeatedly warned that most known fossil fuel reserves must remain unburned to avoid catastrophic climate change. Yet US policy under Donald Trump appears focused on expanding oil and gas production, locking in emissions for decades to come.
Supporters argue that fossil fuels are essential for energy security and economic growth. Critics counter that this approach ignores the accelerating costs of climate change — from extreme weather and infrastructure damage to health impacts and lost productivity.
The concept of a carbon budget makes the stakes clear: every new fossil fuel project consumes a finite share of the atmosphere’s remaining capacity to absorb emissions. Expanding oil production today narrows the options available tomorrow.
The Economic Costs of Climate Inaction
One of the most persistent myths in US climate debate is that climate action harms the economy. In reality, mounting evidence suggests the opposite: climate inaction is already costing Americans billions of dollars.
Extreme heat, wildfires, floods, and storms are becoming more frequent and severe, disrupting supply chains, damaging infrastructure, and straining public finances. Studies indicate that climate change has already reduced average US incomes, particularly in vulnerable regions.
Despite this, Donald Trump has framed climate regulation as an economic threat, often emphasising short-term gains in fossil fuel employment while downplaying long-term economic risks. This framing obscures the potential of the clean energy transition, which offers opportunities for job creation, innovation, and economic resilience.
Why the US Climate Conversation Matters Now
The US stands at a crossroads. It can either recommit to climate leadership — investing in clean energy, re-engaging with global institutions, and aligning economic growth with sustainability — or continue down a path of fossil fuel expansion and international withdrawal.
The developments of 2025 and 2026 show how quickly progress can reverse. Rising emissions, treaty withdrawals, and expanded oil plans are not isolated events; they are interconnected outcomes of political choices.
Talking about Donald Trump and climate change is not about personality politics. It is about recognising how leadership shapes policy, and how policy shapes emissions, economies, and futures.
Conclusion: The Urgency of Talking — and Acting
We need to talk about the US and climate change because the consequences extend far beyond American borders. As one of the world’s most powerful nations, the US has the capacity to accelerate global climate solutions — or to undermine them.
Under Donald Trump, US climate policy has shifted toward deregulation, fossil fuel expansion, and withdrawal from international cooperation. The result is rising emissions, weakened climate governance, and growing risk at a time when scientists say emissions must fall rapidly.
Climate change is no longer a future threat; it is a present reality shaping lives, economies, and geopolitics. The conversation about US climate policy — and the role of Donald Trump within it — is essential, urgent, and unavoidable.
What the US chooses next will help determine not only its own future, but the stability of the planet itself.
