Guest opinion by Robert Sussman. Originally published as part of the Environmental Policy Institute’s Environmental Forum. Reprinted here with the kind permission of EPI and the author.
———
2025 was a challenging year for the global response to climate change.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the United States and 197 other parties, has endured since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Climate negotiations under the Convention have ebbed and flowed for more than three decades but no signatory has previously walked away from the Convention and denounced climate change as a hoax.
That changed in 2025. Immediately after his inauguration, President Donald Trump dismissed climate change as a “green scam” perpetrated by the far left and pulled the United States out of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Then, earlier this year, the Trump Administration withdrew from the Framework Convention, which the U.S. Senate had unanimously ratified in 1992, because it was “contrary to the interests of the United States.” It also backed out of the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which U.S. experts played a central role in shaping the scientific foundation for stemming the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Domestically, the Administration is now well down the road to erasing any trace of climate change from U.S. law and policy. In a single year, the president has begun dismantling greenhouse gas emission limits for power plants, cars, trucks, and oil and gas production; eliminated tax credits and subsidies for renewable energy and electric vehicles; ramped up fossil fuel production and use; and curtailed federal funding for climate research and low-carbon technology. This backtracking has eroded the credibility and influence on climate policy that the United States earned on the global stage under Presidents Barack Obama and Joseph Biden.
In an ominous sign for the future, researchers recently reported that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 2.4% in 2025, reversing declining emissions over the two prior years and foreshadowing larger emission increases as Trump policies take hold.
The fallout from the massive U.S. pullback on climate change was painfully apparent at the 30th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention in Belem, Brazil, last November. Normally a vibrant gathering of activists, pundits, dignitaries, and business leaders, the COP was a lackluster affair, boycotted by the U.S. Administration, sparsely attended by heads of state and celebrities, and poorly covered by the global media.
While some nations arrived at the COP with bold agendas, their proposals to reduce reliance on fossil fuels were thwarted by oil-producing nations and energy-intensive emerging economies. A frustrated and divided European Union, shaken by the new geopolitical alignment and its own reduced influence, nearly balked at signing the final COP agreement in disappointment with its anemic calls for action. China, which many hoped would assume the leadership mantle vacated by the United States, played a passive role, even while showcasing its impressive clean energy targets.
The Paris Agreement, the high watermark of climate diplomacy, would never have occurred without the United States. Adroit leadership by the Obama Administration made it possible to forge a new global framework for climate action that accommodated both established industrial powers and newly dominant economies like India and China. For the first time, nearly all countries committed to goals and deadlines for lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Leading by example, Presidents Obama and Biden followed through with bold emission reduction targets and clean energy initiatives. Coming from the world’s largest economy, dominant oil and gas producer, and biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.S. commitment had a cascading impact on global markets, investment flows, and technology innovation, and was a powerful prod to other countries to maintain their resolve.
But as COP 30 illustrated, U.S. disengagement has left a leadership vacuum that has sapped international momentum and weakened collective resolve. Preoccupied by political turmoil and economic weakness, major powers in Europe and Asia are scaling back ambitious climate goals. The Trump Administration is encouraging this pullback by warning other governments against climate “alarmism” and pressuring them to reject climate science, reestablish fossil fuel hegemony, and abandon renewable energy. Meanwhile, as the United States turns back the clock, China is now on track to produce more than 60% of new renewable capacity worldwide and is already the global leader in production of electric vehicles—cementing its dominance in clean energy manufacturing, deployment, and exports as the United States retreats.
If all roads to a global climate consensus go through the United States, is there any chance we will reverse course and rejoin the Paris Agreement and Framework Convention after 2028, when a new occupant resides in the White House?
Swinging the pendulum back toward U.S. climate engagement requires broad agreement that climate action is vital to U.S. national security and economic well-being and that Trump policies have been harmful to our global standing and national interests. There is a strong case that future U.S. economic growth depends on playing a leadership role in world markets for advanced energy technologies, and that the United States cannot afford to fall further behind because of a short-sighted fixation on fossil fuels, which inevitably will decline in importance. Strengthening this case are the sizable economic benefits of moderating the long-term impacts of climate change, which will sap the productive resources of our economy if allowed to spiral out of control.
But this vision of our economic future is not universally held, and its acceptance is far from assured. The critical question is how the U.S. political landscape will evolve in the next three years and where public opinion will stand on climate and energy issues on the eve of the 2028 presidential election.
So far, a reading of the tea leaves doesn’t reveal a clear path forward. To be sure, the Administration’s reversal of climate policies is opposed by a large and diverse group of constituencies. They include a substantial segment of the scientific community, clean energy investors, backers of endangered wind and solar projects, recipients of climate grants and subsidies, environmental advocates, and populous states like California, New York, and Massachusetts with long histories of climate activism.
Yet, these influential voices face daunting obstacles. The U.S. Congress, now under Republican control, has acquiesced to the Trump climate agenda. While courts have become the major battleground for resistance to Trump rollbacks, legal challenges take time to play out. And although some courts have ruled against the Trump Administration and more may follow suit, a definitive court decision that reverses the course of national climate policy is unlikely given the aversion of the current U.S. Supreme Court majority to expansive interpretations of U.S. regulatory laws.
Meanwhile, important industries that hold the keys to a low-carbon future have stayed out of the fray, reluctant to antagonize the Administration despite their previous support for zero emission targets and rapid electrification of the vehicle fleet. At the recent Davos conclave, corporate leaders who were avid advocates for addressing climate change in the Obama and Biden years were conspicuously silent on the subject.
Widespread public recognition of the dire consequences of ignoring climate change could have a powerful impact on policymakers and officeholders. But climate still has little resonance with the public as a do-or-die issue for humanity. The scientific community has spoken out powerfully against the Trump Administration’s attack on mainstream climate science, but defenders of the science and their allies have failed to meaningfully communicate the alarming implications of a warming planet to the general population.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to withdraw the 2009 endangerment finding—the foundation of U.S. climate policy for the last 17 years—could have been an opportunity to educate the public about climate science and how climate change is impacting daily life. Arguably, if the public understood the linkage between rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere and catastrophic natural disasters and weather events, it would more readily grasp the tangible benefits of stemming the rate of warming and decarbonizing the economy. Unfortunately, however, issues like the endangerment finding repeal have been the domain of a specialized audience of experts and policy mavens and have failed to spark a national referendum on the climate crisis.
The most hopeful recent development is the growing political traction of an issue that could have spillover effects on climate policy: public anxiety about “affordability,” a concern increasingly centered on rising energy costs. Spiraling energy prices have many causes, but a major factor is the failure of supply to keep pace with the growing demand for electricity, driven in large part by the explosive build-out of energy-hungry data centers to serve the AI boom. Instead of moving toward greater energy diversity, the Trump Administration has responded by pushing even harder to refurbish obsolete coal-fired power plants, build expensive new gas-fired generation, and block investments in clean energy and grid improvements that could power millions of homes and businesses.
Critics argue that this approach is not viable and, in the end, will only increase harmful pollution, promote inefficient and high-cost power sources, and deny grid access to renewable sources that could diversify supply, lower prices, and benefit the environment. Take, for example, the President’s recent cancellation of several large offshore wind farms intended to supply power to East Coast population centers. If upheld, this short-sighted move will create billions of dollars in stranded costs, eliminate thousands of jobs, and lead to higher electricity bills in swing states like Virginia.
These outcomes could well trouble voters and increase support for clean energy policies and related climate initiatives. This shift in voter sentiment could tip the balance in the 2026 mid-term elections, rallying congressional support for the clean energy economy and providing an impetus to revive past initiatives to promote carbon-free electricity and transportation. Such momentum could turn into a revitalized domestic and global effort to address climate change, with the United States ultimately rejoining the Paris Agreement, as Biden did in 2021.
But there are reasons for caution. Facing a divided electorate and sluggish economy, the majority party may not want to risk limited political capital on a return to the ambitious climate policies of the Biden years. It may also perceive clean energy mainly as an economic imperative rather than an essential insurance policy against harmful warming of the planet. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) recently warned his colleagues not to be “climate hushers” who “think Dems should stop talking about climate” and focus only on energy costs. If this mindset became widespread, policymakers could shy away from proactive U.S. climate engagement even if clean energy comes back into vogue. The result could be a reluctance to invest in rebuilding the expansive framework for climate mitigation and adaptation that the Biden Administration put in place, despite revival of policies promoting clean energy.
The international landscape may also be different in 2028. The Trump years will take a toll on global solidarity and ambition, and a U.S.-led international order will be difficult to restore following a stressful period of mercurial and often divisive U.S. leadership and faltering progress in reducing global emissions. With U.S. support, 2030 could bring a revival of the global fight against global warming. Still, precious time will have been lost and regaining lost ground after years of inaction and defeatism will be difficult.
These challenges are not reasons for despair. While we need to be realistic about recent events and future prospects, the scientific and moral case for climate action has not weakened. To make this case effectively, we need to move beyond the specialized language of scientists and lawyers and create broad public understanding and engagement. Investing in sustained outreach and education takes time and patience but ultimately is the best tool for rebuilding a durable base of support for global action on climate change.
Bob Sussman is Principal of Sussman & Associates, an environmental law firm.