Published: November 12th, 2022,
Last updated: May 28th, 2025
Vice President Al Gore in 1997 at COP3 in Kyoto: Climate agreement negotiated but defeated at home in the Senate.
US President Joe Biden declared at the Sharm el-Sheikh conference that the USA would strengthen its leadership role in the fight against climate change. But the country with the largest historical carbon emissions fails to live up to its potential as the largest economic power and global superpower when it comes to the climate. The reasons are manifold.
By
Political hurdles: parliament, party politics
The US Constitution stipulates that important levers for climate policy do not rest in the hands of the president: The House of Representatives sets the federal government’s budget. With a majority in the chamber, the opposing Republicans can block the promised climate funds. US climate envoy John Kerry already warned about this. This is one reason why the US only contributes just under eight billion dollars to international climate financing – a fair share would probably be around 40 billion.
The US Senate must ratify all international treaties. If the president does not hold a majority there, he will not succeed – and even if his party holds a majority, success is not guaranteed. That is why the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. One consequence of this was that the Paris Agreement was designed in such a way that it did not impose any direct obligations on any member country – and this was primarily because of the USA.
When it comes to climate protection, the USA is divided along party-political lines: While supporters of the Democrats are largely in favor of climate protection measures, most Republicans reject them. Many Republicans also deny climate change outright.
The White House holds little power over „secondary foreign policy,“ which can also have an impact on climate: When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in August, China shelved all climate talks with the United States.
Powerful fossil fuel corporations and states, bloodletting in government agencies
The influence of fossil fuel corporations on federal and US state policy is strong. For decades, an entire PR industry, with its „merchants of doubt,“ has been making sure that climate policy does not threaten their short-term economic interests. Rex Tillerson, head of US oil giant ExxonMobil, served as U.S. Secretary of State under Donald Trump from 2017 to 2018 – and was also responsible for climate policy.
The Trump years have significantly weakened US climate policy. Many experts from the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) left government service or were fired.
The decentralized political system in the US guarantees individual (fossil-fuel dominated) states considerable influence: One single Democratic senator, Joe Manchin from the coal state of West Virginia, had slowed down Joe Biden’s climate course for a long time.
On the other hand, this grassroots structure also helps to prevent a total climate clean sweep when there is a change of power in Washington. When President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement in 2017, states, businesses, environmental groups, and foundations banded together to form the „We Are Still In“ initiative to still meet the goals of the agreement.
Economic pressure is high
Economic pressures are more important than political decisions. Unlike EU countries, for example, the US relies less on detailed regulation. Instead, it favors quotas, tax breaks and technical innovation. The decline in US emissions in recent years is less the result of targeted policies than of the success of cheap fracking gas, which replaced coal. And just how the 369 billion dollars in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will impact national and international climate policy is unclear. Experts calculate that it will cut carbon emissions by 31 to 44 percent by 2030 – a far cry from the 50 to 52 percent in the US National Climate Action Plan (NDC).
The current high inflation makes higher gas prices unpopular. In any case, the dependence of the USA on cars and airplanes limits the political leeway for fiscal measures, while the damage caused by climate change fuels inflation.
The US is traditionally critical of state intervention. Many people consider taxes to be an unacceptable curtailment of freedom. Carbon pricing and emissions trading for the industry exist in only 15 of 50 states.
Environment and climate hardly play a role in geopolitics
In US geopolitics, environmental and climate issues tend to take a back seat to other interests. The interests in the Persian Gulf, for example, are centered on the petro-states in the region. Many also see the conflict with China as a conflict over the markets for renewable energies – which China currently dominates.
