The Outlook for American Climate Policy
Could Trump’s Favorite Word Double as Climate Policy?
Lili Pike, Foreign Policy
Tackling Climate Change in the Age of Trump
Richard Haass and Carolyn Kissane, Project Syndicate
The future of U.S. climate policy was thrown into question upon the reelection of President Donald Trump to the White House, given his past attitude towards policy designed to fight climate change. However, somewhat surprisingly, there may be room in the administration to still act: The Foreign Pollution Fee Act, spearheaded by Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, proposes imposing a carbon tariff on imported goods with higher carbon footprints than their U.S.-produced counterparts. This initiative targets six key industrial sectors: iron and steel, cement, aluminum, glass, fertilizer, and hydrogen, and introduces a baseline 15% tariff with additional charges based on carbon intensity relative to U.S. standards.
The proposal represents a shift in approach, framing climate action through the lens of trade and strategic competition rather than environmental regulation, something the Trump administration may be able to get behind. This framing aligns with broader efforts to enhance U.S. trade competitiveness, particularly against countries like China. Advocates argue that such a tariff could indirectly encourage global emissions reductions by incentivizing cleaner production practices.
Despite its potential benefits, the proposal still highlights a broader inconsistency in climate policies under the Trump administration. While the carbon tariff aligns with strategic goals, recent policies, such as a 25% steel and aluminum tariff that disregards carbon intensity, underscore a fragmented approach. Critics also emphasize the lack of complementary domestic climate policies. The freeze on funding from the Inflation Reduction Act has stalled essential industrial decarbonization projects, such as subsidies for transitioning from coal-fired blast furnaces to electric alternatives. Without robust domestic investments, the U.S. risks losing its “carbon advantage” over competitors, undermining the effectiveness of trade-based climate measures.
The proposal also reflects a broader shift in global climate efforts under the Trump administration, marked by a retreat from multilateral agreements and a prioritization of fossil fuel production. The U.S. has withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, rescinded emissions-reduction targets, and expanded oil and gas production. These policies mirror trends in other nations where economic growth takes precedence over climate action. However, practical and politically feasible measures—such as promoting natural gas over coal, scaling renewables through public-private partnerships, and accelerating nuclear energy deployment—could offer pathways to mitigate climate change without sacrificing economic stability.
Experts believe that a balanced and pragmatic climate strategy could also include adaptation measures, such as updating building codes to enhance resilience against extreme weather, as well as fostering innovation in carbon capture and solar geoengineering technologies. Additionally, conservation efforts, particularly in forests and oceans, could play a crucial role in addressing long-term climate challenges while bolstering environmental credentials.
Other experts put an emphasis on “minilateralism,” where smaller groups of key governments and corporations focus on targeted solutions, choosing an alternative path forward. While halting climate change entirely may be unrealistic, coordinated efforts to manage its impacts remain essential for economic and environmental stability. |
