The verdict is in: Rich countries can be held responsible for their contributions to climate change. And that decision could leave the United States more isolated than ever.
In late July, the UN’s highest court — the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—unanimously ruled that countries have an obligation to prevent catastrophic climate change by transitioning from fossil fuels and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling specifically condemned governments that subsidize fossil fuels and license their expansion — and said that these actions may make states liable for harmful climate impacts.
In the last year, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) have made similar rulings. The overarching conclusion: mainstream global institutions are calling for an end to fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, the U.S. government is heading in the wrong direction.
President Trump has declared a fake “national energy emergency” to accelerate the permitting of fossil fuel projects. And Congress has passed a monstrous budget bill that, alongside deep cuts to the social safety net and tax cuts for billionaires, expanded the already excessive U.S. subsidies offered to this polluting, profitable industry.
In a particularly egregious move, the Trump administration has even proposed eliminating the key legal authority for the U.S. government to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. This flies in the face of decades of overwhelming scientific evidence — and underscores the Trump regime’s contempt for science, reason and justice.
But it’s not just Trump or the Republicans who’ve brought us to this point. The Biden administration recklessly handed out permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, greenlit oil and gas drilling on public lands at a quicker rate than even the first Trump administration, and increased wasteful subsidies for carbon capture and storage, a costly, dangerous distraction.
The United States isn’t solely to blame for the climate crisis, of course. But it is the world’s largest producer of oil and gas and a top exporter of both. And although China is now a heavier annual emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.S. is still responsible for the most cumulative emissions—a significant metric because of the long life of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
There is, however, a silver lining to the Trump administration’s contempt for the global community. Alongside its climate denial, the administration’s arbitrary, capricious tariffs—including against many nominal allies — are bound to elicit retaliation.
For example, Trump’s tariffs against Brazil (a country with which the U.S. has a $6.8 billion trade surplus) are particularly noteworthy. Their stated intent includes punishing Brazil for prosecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro following his coup attempt after losing reelection.
In response to this blatant interference, Brazil has announced reciprocal tariffs, with Brazilian President Lula de Silva calling the U.S. tariffs “unacceptable blackmail.” With tariffs most likely to affect either U.S. businesses or Bolsonaro’s well-heeled supporters in Brazil, analysts generally agree the exchange has bolstered Lula’s standing against Trump.
And that development could ultimately offer encouragement for other countries, especially those most impacted by climate chaos. If more countries start standing up to Trump’s bullying with measures like Brazil’s, it will help create more pressure on the U.S. government.
Importantly, this wouldn’t be a case of the United States vs the world. It would be the world vs. polluters. As in other countries, many Indigenous, Black, and poor communities in the U.S. have been turned into sacrifice zones for fossil fuel pollution and often bear the brunt of more severe climate disasters as well.
The World Court’s ruling gives some hope to communities like these that, together with people around the world, they can finally hold polluters accountable.
Basav Sen directs the Climate Policy Program at the Institute for Policy Studies.
