Under the Trump administration, the U.S. government has been hell-bent on enriching the fossil fuel industry at the expense of humanity. But elsewhere, the fight for a fossil fuel-free future has broken new ground.
In late April, dozens of world governments — led by Colombia and the Netherlands — convened the first ever international diplomatic conference on phasing out fossil fuels, demonstrating the kind of leadership the world needs today. It’s a refreshing contrast from what we’ve seen from Washington.
Just two days before Earth Day, for example, President Trump issued an order invoking his authority under the Defense Production Act to expand domestic production and exports of fossil fuels, purportedly to boost national security.
The Defense Production Act, which dates back to the Cold War, gives the president power to authorize robust government intervention in the economy and promote production in particular sectors in the interest of “national security.” But it takes a singularly narrow and flawed definition of “national security” to arrive at the conclusion that we need more oil, gas, and coal production in this country.
The U.S. is already the world’s largest oil and gas producer, and a major exporter. This should not be a point of pride. It exposes communities who live in the vicinity of fracking and drilling, pipelines, refineries, and export terminals to toxic air and water pollution and potentially deadly fires and explosions. A disproportionate share of these communities are Indigenous, Black, brown, and poor.
Even communities who don’t live anywhere near the oil and gas buildout are paying the price, in the form of increasingly destructive wildfires, storms, and floods.
With coal, it’s a somewhat different story. The U.S. coal industry is in terminal decline, unable to compete with plentiful fracked gas — and increasingly, cheap solar and wind energy. A governmental push to revive the industry is likely a fool’s errand. But even an ultimately unsuccessful push to expand coal will have disastrous health impacts on communities in the vicinity of coal mining, burning, and waste disposal.
Expanding production of any fossil fuel — whether oil, gas, or coal — goes against the overwhelming global scientific consensus that humanity must start transitioning away from fossil fuels immediately if we are to have a livable future. (That’s why the U.S. government is pushing disinformation in a desperate attempt to justify their corrupt decision to dismiss dire warnings by scientists and enrich their oil oligarch friends.)
While the U.S. government is sacrificing communities at home and worldwide for the benefit of a few politically connected billionaires, governments of more than 50 countries are demonstrating leadership by starting the critically-needed global conversation about a transition away from fossil fuels.
The Santa Marta conference didn’t find a magic fix for fossil fuel dependence. It did, however, generate shared agreement about the need to transition from fossil fuels, transform economic systems that create dependence on fossil fuels, and ensure a just transition for impacted workers and communities.
Three streams of work came out of the conference: developing country-specific transition roadmaps, transforming the global financial system to ensure adequate funding for the transition, and transforming the global trade system. Next year, there will be a second fossil fuel transition conference in the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, co-hosted by Ireland.
The Trump administration is almost certain to ignore this effort. But state governments in the U.S. who claim to be committed to climate action should learn from this example instead of continuing to expand oil and gas production in their states.
It should also serve as an example for future federal administrations in this country.
Even before Trump, claims of U.S. leadership on global climate action have too often been hollow. Past Democratic administrations have expanded fossil fuel production and obstructed progress in global climate negotiations even while professing a commitment to addressing climate change. But the existence of a real alternative should make this kind of doublespeak untenable.
It’s past time for the United States to start following the lead of more responsible actors on the global stage.
Basav Sen directs the Climate Policy Program at the Institute for Policy Studies.
