Low-Energy Fridays: President Trump = Climate Hero?

Global fossil fuel emissions are down this year. According to an analysis by Carbon Brief, global emissions are expected to decline 0.5 percent in 2026. This is the first reduction in global emissions since 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic caused a substantial reduction in fuel use. 

The reason for the current decline is clear: The ongoing military conflict between the United States and Iran has led to a severe reduction in oil supplies coming out of the Persian Gulf, resulting in sharply higher oil and gas prices throughout the world. When the price of something rises, people typically use less of it by switching to a substitute or going without. That’s what is happening here, particularly in places like Europe and Asia, where gasoline prices have risen most starkly. In Europe, sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have risen rapidly; in fact, EVs and hybrids made up 73 percent of new vehicle sales in August. This is all a direct consequence of U.S. military action in Iran and its resulting fallout.

On X, some users responded to the news by cheekily hailing President Donald Trump as a kind of climate hero. I obviously don’t think Trump’s goal in Iran is to bring down emissions, as he seems pretty skeptical about climate change in general. Rather, U.S. military action in Iran aims to address other geostrategic objectives, such as preventing nuclear proliferation. 

But that’s not the only example of the Trump administration pursuing policies that could indirectly advance climate goals. I wrote last year about the possibility that the tariffs imposed by the United States on countries like China could lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The president has also pursued a bold vision on nuclear regulatory reform that could help increase the amount of clean energy used in America. 

This raises a couple of deeper points. First, this is yet another example of how non-climate policies can have bigger climate impacts than actual climate policies. No combination of emissions restrictions, cap and trade schemes, and renewable energy subsidies has led to an absolute reduction in fossil fuel-related greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve made this point before. 

Second, people don’t like higher oil and gas prices. While higher prices at the pump are proven to reduce carbon emissions, they are also proven to infuriate voters. And when voters get angry, they do rash things like vote politicians out of office. 

These two points are related. One reason climate policies are less effective at reducing emissions is that politicians don’t want to risk the reaction of irate voters if those policies make things more expensive. Sometimes referred to as the “iron law” of climate policy, this avoidance of risk leads to climate policies that are marginal or that lean more heavily on symbolism than the most effective ways to lower emissions. This is particularly true for poor and developing countries, for whom economic growth to reduce poverty is paramount. 

Climate change hasn’t been getting the level of media attention that it used to, but that doesn’t mean it’s no longer a problem. What remains true is that for solutions to be sustainable, they can’t involve things that people hate (like higher prices). A viable climate policy must focus on making emissions reduction cheap and easy rather than a burden endured for the greater good.