On January 20, 2025, America witnessed another significant event: President Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C. The ceremony marked the beginning of his four-year term, echoing his well-known slogan “Make America Great Again.”
In a bold move, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. This decision initiated a major shift in the nation’s energy and climate policies. His “America First” energy strategy focuses on boosting fossil fuel production, rolling back regulations, and reducing government oversight. Supporters see this as a way to enhance energy independence and foster economic growth. However, critics warn it could lead to severe environmental damage and a loss of global leadership.
Exiting the Paris Agreement: A Signal to the World
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement. It signaled a huge setback for global efforts to combat climate change. This decision mirrors his 2017 move to pull the U.S. out of the same accord.
The Paris Agreement, formed in 2015, seeks to limit global temperature rise to 2.7°F (1.5°C) above pre-industrial levels. The fallback goal is to stay below 3.6°F (2°C). Countries set their emission reduction targets, which are expected to become more ambitious over time.
As reported by AP News, along with an executive order, Trump signed a letter to the United Nations, officially stating his intent to exit the agreement. The accord requires nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. In contrast, the Biden administration proposed reducing U.S. emissions by over 60% by 2035 as part of its climate strategy.
Trump’s decision further isolates the U.S. from key global allies. It raises concerns about the international community’s ability to tackle climate change without American leadership.
Biennial Transparency Report: Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions
According to the U.S. government’s most recent official projections, the full 2024 Policy Baseline sees the U.S. achieving net GHG emission reductions of:
Relative to 2005 levels
- 29 – 46% in 2030,
- 36 – 57% in 2035
- 34 – 64% in 2040
Trump Declares National Energy Emergency: Drilling and Deregulation
One of Trump’s most controversial moves was declaring an “energy emergency”. Trump said,
“The inflation crisis is caused by overspending and massive and escalating energy prices that is why I also declare a national energy emergency. America will be a manufacturing nation again and we will have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have, the largest amount of oil and gas that any country on earth has and we are going to use it,”.
The White House stated that the U.S. lacks enough energy supply and infrastructure to meet its needs. It stressed the importance of reliable, affordable energy for industries, defense, and everyday life. High energy prices, worsened by past policies, hurt low- and fixed-income families the most.
The statement warned that foreign adversaries exploit U.S. energy weaknesses, targeting infrastructure and manipulating global markets. Energy security is crucial for protecting Americans and stabilizing the economy. A strong domestic energy supply reduces reliance on foreign sources and ensures national security.
Notably, the Trump administration has promised to reduce energy prices as a measure to combat high inflation.
Unleashing Alaska’s Resource Potential
Alaska holds a special place in Trump’s energy strategy and broadly in American energy dominance. In Alaska, Trump issued an executive order to lift restrictions on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Beyond opening the ANWR to drilling, Trump’s policies focus on expanding resource extraction across the state, including mining and natural gas projects.
The administration argues that Alaska’s resources are vital for national security and economic growth. He also plans to fast-track permits for energy projects, claiming that lengthy bureaucratic processes hinder economic growth.
However, these actions face significant opposition. Environmental activists warn that increased drilling could accelerate climate change, particularly as the Arctic warms at twice the global average. Indigenous groups, too, are voicing concerns about the impact on their cultural heritage and traditional practices.
Targeting Renewable Energy, Embracing Fossil Fuels Again
This stance could stall progress in the rapidly growing renewable energy sector. Over the past decade, wind and solar power have become more competitive, creating thousands of jobs. Industry leaders worry that removing federal support will slow innovation and weaken the United States’ position in the global clean energy race.
Meanwhile, states like California and New York have pledged to continue their investments in renewables. California, for example, has vowed to continue its aggressive climate policies, including a ban on gas-powered car sales by 2035.
Rolling Back EV Push and Emissions Rules
Electric vehicles (EVs) have been at the forefront of climate solutions. However, Trump plans to repeal federal tax credits for EVs and reverse energy efficiency mandates. These rollbacks aim to reduce government intervention in the auto industry and encourage consumer choice.
Reuters recently reported that the Biden administration’s goal of having 50% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. be electric by 2030 was non-binding but had gained support from automakers across the globe.
Trump’s executive order halts the $5 billion fund for EV charging stations and proposes ending state waivers, including California’s 2035 gasoline car ban. The order also directs the EPA to reconsider stricter emissions rules that require automakers to increase EV sales to 30-56% by 2032.
A Setback for Clean Transportation?
The motive is simple i.e. reducing EV sales requirements and challenging efforts to expand electric vehicle adoption. It also clearly indicates a shift away from Biden’s climate-focused policies, signaling a renewed push for fossil fuel reliance and less government intervention in the automotive industry. The debate over these policies will likely continue, with legal and market forces shaping the future of America’s vehicle market.
Critics argue that this approach favors gasoline-powered vehicles, delays the transition to cleaner transportation, and can potentially increase carbon emissions. Automakers, who have already invested heavily in EV production, face uncertainty about future regulations. Meanwhile, countries like China and Germany continue to dominate the EV market, leaving the U.S. at risk of falling behind.
Suzanna Massingue, a low-carbon transportation analyst at S&P Global explained that Trump has repeatedly criticized EVs, targeting the Biden-era EV tax credit and the shift toward electrification. Removing this tax credit would hurt the U.S. EV industry and delay cost parity with gas-powered cars.
The Paradox of America’s Progress Under Trump’s Rule
President Trump’s “America First” energy strategy represents a paradox in U.S. climate policy. On one side, it focuses on boosting economic growth, energy independence, and creating jobs through fossil fuel expansion. On the other side, critics warn that this approach could harm the environment and hurt the country’s global leadership in tackling climate change.
The Anti-Trump group believes that by prioritizing deregulation and fossil fuels, the administration is aiming for short-term economic benefits. Moreover, legal challenges already exist, with environmental groups preparing to fight in court. They argue that many of Trump’s policies violate laws that protect the environment and public health.
In conclusion, America’s energy future seems uncertain at this moment. Legal battles, market shifts, and state policies will all play an important role in determining America’s carbon footprint. Most significantly, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has sparked significant criticism. But how much America will truly benefit from this approach– only time will tell!
