Since its inauguration, the Trump administration has embarked on an aggressive agenda to dismantle vital environmental regulations and climate change initiatives, both at home and abroad. It has manifested through numerous deregulatory actions, the dismantling of established legal and administrative frameworks, and a blatant disregard for climate science.

The international response to this assault on climate politics is evolving, shaped largely by the strategic interests and geopolitical ambitions of major world powers. The U.S. withdrawal from global environmental and climate efforts has created a significant void that other major powers are all too eager to exploit for their strategic gains.

In its first three months, the administration unleashed at least 20 Executive Orders, 16 memorandums, numerous federal guidelines, and various secretory-level orders, all orchestrated to roll back essential environmental regulations, policies, and institutions. These instruments are deliberately crafted to erode the foundational pillars of environmental protection, sustainability, and climate initiatives. They threaten the principles of environmental justice, the advancement of clean energy policies, the conservation of wildlife, and ultimately the safeguarding of both people and nature from the corrosive influence of corporate greed and exploitative practices.

The actions taken by the administration have included the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, the targeting of states’ climate laws, a plan to dismantle FEMA, the termination of American Climate Corps, the dismantling of renewable energy initiatives, and an attempt to terminate the employment of over 1,000 scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In another significant move, the administration dismissed nearly 800 staff members and scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency who have played critical roles in weather, marine, fisheries, and climate research. Furthermore, the administration reduced budgets for environmental justice initiatives by nearly $2 billion, dismantled essential air quality and carbon dioxide regulations, and halted the enforcement of pollution rules for energy facilities.

The administration also revoked the classification of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants. The administration’s campaign extended beyond its policy actions. It also attacked climate science, facts, and consensus by promoting false and unscientific narratives in public discourse.

Global Implications on Climate Science and Politics

The United States has been a pivotal actor in global climate initiatives since at least the 1980s, making substantial contributions through its scientific prowess, financial support, political influence, and agenda-setting strategies. However, its recent retreat from these vital global engagements is already having a global ripple effect, especially in the field of climate science.

In late February, the Trump administration barred American scientists from attending a crucial meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in China. Established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations, the IPCC stands as the premier scientific authority on climate issues, boasting a coalition of thousands of scientists appointed by member states. By delivering regular assessments of climate change, its effects, and potential risks, the IPCC is responsible for producing influential climate assessment reports. The meeting in China focused on preparing for the seventh assessment cycle report due in 2029. The absence of the United States is already causing a fracture in global consensus.

Member states, for instance, split into two blocs over the timing of the report’s release. The High Ambition Coalition (HAC), which includes about 20 countries from the EU, Latin America, and Island Nations, called for an early release before the UN Global Stocktaking in mid-2028. The stocktaking, part of the Paris Climate Agreement, assesses national progress on emissions and climate goals every five years. The HAC wanted the report released early to ensure that it contributes to global climate policy and discussions in 2028.

On the other side was a group of about a dozen major polluters, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, who opposed the accelerated timeline for the IPCC assessment report’s release. They didn’t want updated stocktaking data to influence global climate action plans for 2028. This effort received backing from the fossil fuel industry and carries significant implications for science and the role of the IPCC in shaping global climate initiatives.

Ultimately, the meeting was unable to reach an agreement on the release of the assessment report. This most significant potential rupture in the role of the IPCC since its establishment in 1988 will end up benefiting polluters and fossil fuel interests. The absence of American scientists from the IPCC and the lack of the United States as a leading state in global climate discussions has contributed to this rupture.

China’s Global Climate Performative Reaction

In the realm of global climate politics, China has been characterized as a performative state. Although its actions related to climate on the global stage are impressive, they are largely influenced by its strategic and economic interests. The U.S. withdrawal from global climate politics has created an opportunity for China to step into the void and position itself as a reliable leader in international environmental politics and climate policies.

China has condemned the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and has pledged to stabilize global climate interests. The country is intensifying its commitments to climate funding and Green initiatives in various regions, such as Africa and the Caribbean. With international climate advocates calling for leadership, China has seized the opportunity to enhance its role as a leading state in global climate actions and politics.

During the IPCC plenary in China, representatives from the host country reiterated their commitment to climate science cooperation and asked the community for scientific integrity. The head of the China Meteorological Administration pledged the country’s dedication to the IPCC and its willingness to collaborate on global warning systems. This occurs at a time when the Trump administration is significantly cutting funding for climate-related scientific initiatives and agencies.

Although China seeks to assume the climate leadership role that the US has vacated, many of its domestic and global environmental practices are counterproductive to the fight against climate change. The country is not only the largest polluter in terms of gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but it is also facing a significant environmental crisis, particularly in air quality. As the world’s largest coal producer, it accounts for half of global coal consumption. In 2024, the country approved the highest number of coal-fired power plants since 2015, planning to add nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of coal-generated electricity to its national grid.

While China has been increasing its coal-fired power plants, the Trump administration appears to be competing with Beijing by implementing policies that facilitate the resurgence of coal in the U.S. energy sector. These measures include exempting nearly 50 large private power plants from federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Additionally, the administration has directed the Interior and Commerce Departments to identify regions with existing coal-fired infrastructure to meet the energy demands of AI data centers.

EU’s Climate U-Turn

Until recently, the EU was regarded as a “Green normative power.” Utilizing its soft power, the EU positioned itself as a global leader in environmentalism and climate politics, prioritizing Green transitions in its economic and political policies. However, the outbreak of the war in Ukraine prompted a significant shift away from clean energy toward increased reliance on conventional fossil fuels, including coal, albeit temporarily.

During President Trump’s first term, the U.S. withdrawal from global climate initiatives faced strong criticism from EU member countries. The same reaction occurred during Trump’s second term, as his administration again pulled out of these initiatives. However, the ongoing trade war initiated by his administration seemed to compel the EU to prioritize its strategic interests over its commitment to climate change.

In late February, the European Council (EC) proposed loosening its environmental and sustainability regulations, as well as the reporting standards and supply chain transparency requirements for European companies. This decision came in response to concerns from European corporations, who claimed that these social and sustainability regulations hinder their competitiveness in the global economy. Greenpeace criticized the European Council’s proposal, arguing that the council competes with Trump and Musk by diminishing protections for both people and the planet. Environmental organizations, activists, and advocacy groups have formally filed complaints against the EC‘s proposal with the EU Watchdog.

Russia’s Geopolitical Ambitions

During the Cold War, Soviet scientists were among the pioneers in climate change science. Politically, the Soviet Union was also a forerunner in advocating for international cooperation on environmental degradation, sustainability, and man-induced destruction of the planet’s ecology. For instance, in 1985, the last premier of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, appealed for global collaboration on these issues.

At first, it seemed as though Russia would continue in this tradition. In 2004, when the United States and Australia chose not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol—the first legally binding international climate agreement for developed nations—Russia signed and ratified it to prevent the agreement from collapsing. By doing so, Russia effectively ensured the protocol’s survival.

But Russia under President Vladimir Putin has stepped back from environmental stewardship and active climate politics. It has subordinated climate policy to its geopolitical ambitions. U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, for instance, creates just the kind of chaos in global climate politics and financing that aligns with Russia’s geopolitical ambitions. As a revisionist power alongside China, Russia seeks to influence world politics through alternative global institutional arrangement such as the BRICS. The U.S. retreat offers BRICS an opportunity to promote its alternatives to the World Bank and IMF financial systems, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), particularly in the areas of climate financing and sustainability projects.

Among the two financial initiatives, the NDB, which began operating in 2016, offers loans focused on climate finance, sustainable development, clean energy, and social development. The NDB, in alignment with global climate goals, does not finance coal-fired power plants or power generation. Although the size and operations of this financial institution are currently limited, the unpredictability of Western-led climate financial mechanisms—exacerbated by the erratic policies of the Trump administration—may drive developing countries with high climate vulnerabilities and low levels of preparedness to bandwagon around the alternative financial institutions of the BRICS. This situation presents an opportunity for Russia to extend its strategic tentacles into these countries, including those in the African Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

India’s Expediency

India, one of the world’s largest importers of crude fossil fuels and the second-largest consumer of coal, is significantly impacted by climate change, experiencing severe effects such as altered monsoon patterns, droughts, and heat waves. Amid the turmoil in global climate and environmental politics, India appears to be leveraging this disarray to its advantage.

After the inauguration of Trump, U.S. crude oil exports to India hit a two-year high. Furthermore, during their initial meeting, Indian Prime Minister Modi supported Trump’s energy policies by increasing imports of American fossil fuels.

India’s growing demand for American fossil fuel is driven in part by sanctions on nearby Iran but also by pragmatic economic considerations. To reduce its trade deficit with the United States, India is seeking more favorable tariff arrangements by boosting its fossil fuel purchases. To achieve this aim, the Modi government is pursuing an end to the import tax on U.S. liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Officials in New Delhi have pledged to significantly expand energy purchases from the United States, aiming for an increase from $10 billion to $25 billion in the near future.

The increased import of cheap American fossil fuels poses a long-term challenge to India’s efforts to enhance the share of clean energy sources in its economy. The Modi government’s pragmatic and opportunistic approach to energy politics is not a response solely to the Trump administration’s assault on climate and environmental deregulation. Rather, it is a continuation of policies that began with the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with the resulting global sanctions on Russian natural gas and oil, presented the Modi government with an opportunity to leverage India’s geopolitical significance, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. As a member of the Quad, which aims to counter China’s geostrategic expansionism, India was able to increase imports of fossil fuels, including liquefied natural gas, oil, and even coal from Russia, at prices significantly lower than those in the global market.

Now, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s tendency to prioritize energy over climate regulations, prime minister Modi is looking to expand the Indian market for American fossil fuels as part of its strategy to support U.S. energy needs.

Future of Global Climate Politics

Climate policy has emerged as a necessity on the international stage due to the threats posed by environmental degradation and climate change to people, communities, and nations. Although environmental and climate politics have scientific and instrumental facets, they also possess significant political imperatives. Countries, particularly major powers, often support these initiatives not merely to address environmental threats but also to advance their political and strategic interests. With its scientific prowess, financial resources, institutional arrangements, grand strategic vision, and normative preferences, the United States has assumed a leadership role in advancing collective climate goals and institutionalizing global climate politics.

The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the climate leadership role has opened the field to competition among other major powers eager to assert their influence. Although the Trump administration has damaged the credibility of U.S. climate leadership, making it appear unreliable and unpredictable, other powers, particularly revisionist states like China and Russia, are poised to fill this vacuum and align these politics with their strategic ambitions.

Although global environmental and climate politics may face challenges due to this shift in leadership, resulting in difficulties in meeting established goals or smoothly implementing the agenda, they will not vanish from the international stage. Environmental and climate politics is an integral part of the contemporary international political landscape. However, the consequences will be felt most acutely by the vulnerable communities and nations around the world, who will continue to suffer from climate shocks based on their degree of vulnerability and level of preparedness.

Ultimately, no community is immune to the impacts of climate shocks, including those in the United States. The Trump administration is thus subjecting hundreds of millions of people, including American communities, to the harsh realities of climate shocks and environmental degradation. But it also defying rationality and strategic calculation by strengthening the hands of its adversaries in global climate politics.

This first appeared on FPIF.

The post The Global Repurcussions of Trump’s Withdrawal From Climate Politics appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.