Portside

PROVIDENCE – There are multiple competing theories about what drives the anti-green policies embraced by US President Donald Trump. Perhaps they reflect the influence of carbon-heavy industries in Republican-controlled states. Or perhaps they channel ideological hostility to the notion that the state should play any kind of planning role in the economy.

Whatever the case, it is increasingly apparent that the Trump administration wants to halt decarbonization not only in the United States but globally. Viewed from this perspective, much of the recent US policy incoherence starts to make more sense – albeit in a dangerously regressive way.

The US sits atop vast reserves of fossil fuels, which have underpinned its national prosperity for decades. They have lit cities, powered factories, stimulated postwar job growth, and forged broad regional political coalitions among labor, agriculture, and corporations. They are also highly profitable commodities, with exports creating global dependence on US supplies (which is especially true for liquefied natural gas following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine). Fossil fuels are a core component of the country’s political economy – and a key factor in US domestic and foreign policymaking.

The Trump administration recognizes this. It includes ideological realists who understand that energy transitions make hegemons – that energy is power. Just as coal drove the industrial revolution in England, oil and gas fueled America’s postwar dominance. Whoever controls energy controls the future.

Unfortunately for the US, if the next energy transition is a green one, the future surely belongs to China, whose green-tech dominance is so firmly established that it does not really matter which metric you look at. In terms of the critical minerals used for such technologies, China supplies the majority of the world’s refined lithium (70%), cobalt (78%), graphite (95%), rare earths (91%), and manganese (91%). In terms of green-tech manufacturing, China accounts for 80% of solar panel production, 50-70% of the wind turbine market, and over half of electric vehicles. And in terms of deployment, it is undertaking three-quarters of the world’s renewable-energy projects.

This is all good news for those who care about decarbonization; but it is bad news for those hoping to extend US hegemony. If the US wants to preserve its global primacy, then realist logic dictates that it needs China to fail. And the US can engineer that outcome by continuing to do exactly what it is doing.

Since Trump returned to office, his administration has been reshaping American consumption by imposing massive import tariffs and abandoning the previous administration’s program of domestic decarbonization incentives and investments. The Inflation Reduction Act was an explicit attempt to compete with China in green tech. But now Americans are being weaned off the renewables that they were just beginning to enjoy.

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill spells disaster for the future of US green-tech investment, and his administration is further deregulating fossil fuels and adding more hurdles for clean-energy projects. While the Environmental Protection Agency works to extinguish its own ability to regulate carbon emissions, NASA satellites that track US emissions are being targeted for self-destruction. All these moves, coupled with 30% tariffs on imports from China, signal to green-tech producers that the world’s top consumer no longer wants their wares.1

Moreover, the US is trying to undercut global demand for Chinese green tech by compelling its largest trading partners to import US fossil fuels instead. China’s own top trading partner, the European Union, just committed to purchase $750 billion of US oil and gas by 2028 – an amount that far exceeds current US output. And the rest of China’s top trading partners are following suit. Japan and Taiwan have agreed to invest billions in US LNG, and South Korea is poised to join them.1

These moves come straight from the US postwar playbook: By ensuring that European markets would be dependent on US oil, the Marshall Plan prevented the Soviet Union from wielding its own energy influence over the continent.

The current US government is not just trying to rebalance trade. It is obstructing global decarbonization as a matter of policy. Cratering American demand for green technologies decreases global demand by a non-trivial amount. And manipulating the terms of bilateral trade deals to favor US fossil fuels abroad further undercuts demand for green tech, impeding the clean-energy transition in key blocs like the EU and East Asia.

The Trump administration is doing everything it can to ensure that fossil fuels remain dominant in the energy mix of the twenty-first century. If it succeeds, the short-term returns to the US will be huge. But the long-term damage to the planet will be orders of magnitude larger.

Mark Blyth, Professor of International Economics and Director of the Rhodes Centre for International Economics and Finance at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, is the co-author (with Nicolò Fraccaroli), most recently, of Inflation: A Guide for Users and Losers (W. W. Norton & Company, 2025).

Daniel Driscoll is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia and a nonresident fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Project Syndicate produces and delivers original, high-quality commentaries to a global audience. Featuring exclusive contributions by prominent political leaders, policymakers, scholars, business leaders, and civic activists from around the world, we provide news media and their readers with cutting-edge analysis and insight, regardless of ability to pay. Our membership includes over 500 media outlets – more than half of which receive our commentaries for free or at subsidized rates – in 156 countries.

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

RFK Jr Demanded a Vaccine Study Be Retracted — the Journal Said NO
Rachel Fieldhouse
Nature Magazine
In a rare move for a US public official, health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr called for a Danish paper finding no link between Aluminium in vaccines and disease to be retracted.
August 22,  2025