Best Climate Performance: We’re Number 52
Since 2005, the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) has been grading the climate mitigation performances of sixty countries and the European Union. Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute, and the Climate Action Network developed this independent ranking, drawing on the advice of 450 climate and policy experts, measuring the performance of these countries, which emit some 92 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. The CCPI considers four main factors: greenhouse gas emissions (40 percent of overall score), renewable energy (20 percent), energy use (20 percent), and climate policy (20 percent). The CCPI ranking board decided to leave the first three positions blank on the 2023 ranking, noting that no country had performed well enough to be considered in the highest ranking.
The United States ranked 52nd out of 60 countries. Why is the US so embarrassing low on this ranking? The CCPI recognized the targets and policies for climate action announced by the Biden administration, citing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, with its $21 billion on environmental projects, $7.5 billion for electric vehicles, and $65 billion for improving the power infrastructure and adjustments to renewable energy. It also acknowledges the Biden administration’s net-zero emissions target for 2050 and a 2030 goal of cutting 2005-level greenhouse gases by 50-52 percent. The impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, with its historic emphasis on climate change mitigation, is not factored into this analysis.
The CCPI report concludes that its country experts “welcome the US government’s new commitments. They note the obstructing role the Republican opposition plays in climate politics. However, the experts criticize that some policies lack a mandatory character, and implementation will not be quick enough. The main shortcoming described is that the US will not halt domestic fossil fuel extraction, and there are still fossil fuel subsidies in place.” But the US ranking on the CCPI listing has been worse: last time it was measured, in 2021, the United States sat at 55th place. With a new Trump presidential term, America’s place in the CCPI rankings will surely suffer.
Sources: Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-capita-vs-renewable-electricity?tab=table and Global Carbon Project, https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/. Rachel Hellman, “US Lags in Latest Climate Protection Rankings,” US News, February 28, 2022, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-02-28/denmark-shines-u-s-lags-in-latest-climate-protection-rankings. Climate Change Performance Index 2023, https://ccpi.org/ranking/ (accessed October 14, 2023).
Since 2005, the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) has been grading the climate mitigation performances of sixty countries and the European Union. Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute, and the Climate Action Network developed this independent ranking, drawing on the advice of 450 climate and policy experts, measuring the performance of these countries, which emit some 92 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. The CCPI considers four main factors: greenhouse gas emissions (40 percent of overall score), renewable energy (20 percent), energy use (20 percent), and climate policy (20 percent). The CCPI ranking board decided to leave the first three positions blank on the 2023 ranking, noting that no country had performed well enough to be considered in the highest ranking.
The United States ranked 52nd out of 60 countries. Why is the US so embarrassing low on this ranking? The CCPI recognized the targets and policies for climate action announced by the Biden administration, citing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, with its $21 billion on environmental projects, $7.5 billion for electric vehicles, and $65 billion for improving the power infrastructure and adjustments to renewable energy. It also acknowledges the Biden administration’s net-zero emissions target for 2050 and a 2030 goal of cutting 2005-level greenhouse gases by 50-52 percent. The impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, with its historic emphasis on climate change mitigation, is not factored into this analysis.
The CCPI report concludes that its country experts “welcome the US government’s new commitments. They note the obstructing role the Republican opposition plays in climate politics. However, the experts criticize that some policies lack a mandatory character, and implementation will not be quick enough. The main shortcoming described is that the US will not halt domestic fossil fuel extraction, and there are still fossil fuel subsidies in place.” But the US ranking on the CCPI listing has been worse: last time it was measured, in 2021, the United States sat at 55th place. With a new Trump presidential term, America’s place in the CCPI rankings will surely suffer.
Sources: Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-capita-vs-renewable-electricity?tab=table and Global Carbon Project, https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/. Rachel Hellman, “US Lags in Latest Climate Protection Rankings,” US News, February 28, 2022, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-02-28/denmark-shines-u-s-lags-in-latest-climate-protection-rankings. Climate Change Performance Index 2023, https://ccpi.org/ranking/ (accessed October 14, 2023).
Percentage of Electricity from Nuclear Power: We’re Number 6
The first US commercial nuclear power plant went online in 1957 and most of the subsequent plants were built in the 1970s through the 1990s. At its peak in 2012, there were 104 nuclear reactors in the United States; many of them were built decades earlier and were approaching the end of their useful life. Since 2012, about twenty reactors have been decommissioned and only two new reactors, Vogtle Unit 3 and Unit 4 in Georgia, have gone online. In 2021, there were a total of 93 nuclear power plants, generating nearly 20 percent of America’s electricity.
In 2011, following the nuclear power disaster in Fukushima, Japan, the German government determined that it would close its nuclear facilities. Eight of seventeen units were closed in 2011, and in 2021, six units were still operating. Then by 2023, all such units were shut down, despite protests that the Russian invasion of Ukraine might put Germany’s energy supplies at further risk.
One of the major, unresolved issues for commercial nuclear power plants is the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982) had authorized the Department of energy to determine a geologic repository for a permanent disposal; after much political wrangling, the remote and geologically inert site of Yucca Mountain in Nevada was chosen as the permanent disposal site for the entire commercial nuclear industry. This did not sit well with Nevadans, many of whom called the legislation the “Screw Nevada” bill. About $7 billion had been collected from energy companies for nuclear waste depository fund, and most of that had been spent preparing the Yucca Mountain site. But when President Obama took office in 2009, powerful Senate majority leader Harry Reid from Nevada convinced the administration to abandon the Yucca Mountain plan. Congress has not come up with a plan for a permanent storage site since. Meanwhile, some 72,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, and growing every day, was stored at 80 sites scattered about in thirty-four states.
The United States is not alone in failing to solve the spent fuel problem. “No country, including the United States, has a permanent geologic repository for disposal” of spent nuclear fuel, according to a 2020 Congressional Research Service analysis.
The United States generates 771 TWh of electricity through its 93 nuclear power plants; this accounts for 19.6 percent of all electricity generated throughout the country. China is second with 383 TWh from 55 nuclear power plants, accounting for 5.0 percent of its electricity. France is third with 363 TWh from 56 nuclear plants; but France comes in first place for the percentage of its country’s electricity (69.0) coming from nuclear energy.
Sources: Lance N. Larson, “Nuclear Waste Storage Sites in the United States,” Congressional Research Service, US Congress, April 13, 2020, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IF11201.pdf.
World Nuclear Association, https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx
The first US commercial nuclear power plant went online in 1957 and most of the subsequent plants were built in the 1970s through the 1990s. At its peak in 2012, there were 104 nuclear reactors in the United States; many of them were built decades earlier and were approaching the end of their useful life. Since 2012, about twenty reactors have been decommissioned and only two new reactors, Vogtle Unit 3 and Unit 4 in Georgia, have gone online. In 2021, there were a total of 93 nuclear power plants, generating nearly 20 percent of America’s electricity.
In 2011, following the nuclear power disaster in Fukushima, Japan, the German government determined that it would close its nuclear facilities. Eight of seventeen units were closed in 2011, and in 2021, six units were still operating. Then by 2023, all such units were shut down, despite protests that the Russian invasion of Ukraine might put Germany’s energy supplies at further risk.
One of the major, unresolved issues for commercial nuclear power plants is the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1982) had authorized the Department of energy to determine a geologic repository for a permanent disposal; after much political wrangling, the remote and geologically inert site of Yucca Mountain in Nevada was chosen as the permanent disposal site for the entire commercial nuclear industry. This did not sit well with Nevadans, many of whom called the legislation the “Screw Nevada” bill. About $7 billion had been collected from energy companies for nuclear waste depository fund, and most of that had been spent preparing the Yucca Mountain site. But when President Obama took office in 2009, powerful Senate majority leader Harry Reid from Nevada convinced the administration to abandon the Yucca Mountain plan. Congress has not come up with a plan for a permanent storage site since. Meanwhile, some 72,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, and growing every day, was stored at 80 sites scattered about in thirty-four states.
The United States is not alone in failing to solve the spent fuel problem. “No country, including the United States, has a permanent geologic repository for disposal” of spent nuclear fuel, according to a 2020 Congressional Research Service analysis.
The United States generates 771 TWh of electricity through its 93 nuclear power plants; this accounts for 19.6 percent of all electricity generated throughout the country. China is second with 383 TWh from 55 nuclear power plants, accounting for 5.0 percent of its electricity. France is third with 363 TWh from 56 nuclear plants; but France comes in first place for the percentage of its country’s electricity (69.0) coming from nuclear energy.
Sources: Lance N. Larson, “Nuclear Waste Storage Sites in the United States,” Congressional Research Service, US Congress, April 13, 2020, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IF11201.pdf.
World Nuclear Association, https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx
Energy from Solar Power, New Capacity: We’re Number 2
According to the US Energy Information Agency, just over half of the new US energy capacity generated in 2023 will come from solar power. This will be the most solar capacity added in a single year in the US and the first time that more than half of the US capacity additions are coming from solar. Through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the EPA launched a $7 billion grant competition for solar energy, targeted for millions of low-income households, a program championed by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.
In 2022, the United States had 204 total Terra-Watt hours (TWh) of solar production; in 2005, that figure was just 0.55 Terra-Watts. (A Terra-Watt hour is enough electricity to fully power 70,000 homes for a year). China is the leader in solar production, with 420 TWh; in 2005 it had just 0.08 TWh. India is the third top generator with 95 TWh, followed by Germany (59), Australia (33.5) and Spain 32.8)
Sources: Wind, Solar, and Batteries Increasingly Account for More New US Power Capacity Additions,” Today in Energy, USEIA, March 6, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55719#:~:text=As%20of%20January%202023%2C%2073.5,in%202023%20is%20solar%20power. “EPA Launches $7 Billion Competition to Bring Low-Cost Solar Energy to More Hard-Working American Families, The White House, June 28, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/cleanenergy/clean-energy-updates/2023/06/28/epa-launches-7-billion-competition-to-bring-low-cost-solar-energy-to-more-hard-working-american-families/; Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-energy-consumption?tab=chart&country=IND~CHN~AUS~USA~ZAF~ESP~OWID_WRL~DEU~GBR~BRA~FRA~CAN
According to the US Energy Information Agency, just over half of the new US energy capacity generated in 2023 will come from solar power. This will be the most solar capacity added in a single year in the US and the first time that more than half of the US capacity additions are coming from solar. Through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the EPA launched a $7 billion grant competition for solar energy, targeted for millions of low-income households, a program championed by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.
In 2022, the United States had 204 total Terra-Watt hours (TWh) of solar production; in 2005, that figure was just 0.55 Terra-Watts. (A Terra-Watt hour is enough electricity to fully power 70,000 homes for a year). China is the leader in solar production, with 420 TWh; in 2005 it had just 0.08 TWh. India is the third top generator with 95 TWh, followed by Germany (59), Australia (33.5) and Spain 32.8)
Sources: Wind, Solar, and Batteries Increasingly Account for More New US Power Capacity Additions,” Today in Energy, USEIA, March 6, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55719#:~:text=As%20of%20January%202023%2C%2073.5,in%202023%20is%20solar%20power. “EPA Launches $7 Billion Competition to Bring Low-Cost Solar Energy to More Hard-Working American Families, The White House, June 28, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/cleanenergy/clean-energy-updates/2023/06/28/epa-launches-7-billion-competition-to-bring-low-cost-solar-energy-to-more-hard-working-american-families/; Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-energy-consumption?tab=chart&country=IND~CHN~AUS~USA~ZAF~ESP~OWID_WRL~DEU~GBR~BRA~FRA~CAN
Energy from Wind Power, New Capacity: We’re Number 2
While many of the wind farms are on land, others are planted in the sea, usually in shallow waters. Several of the barriers to wind farms along coastal waters, particularly in the United States, have been objections to the noise, the detriment to marine life, and the inevitable charges that windfarms just miles off the coast ruin the view. Most recently there have been concerted efforts in Ocean City and Cape May County, New Jersey, to block a ninety-eight-unit windmill farm, which would supply power to half a million homes. But some locals (and outside groups assisting them) are adamantly opposed to windfarms just miles off their coastline. As environmental journalist Kate Selig reported, if the wind farm opponents succeed, “they hope to create a template for derailing some thirty-one offshore wind projects in various stages of development and construction off the East Coast, a key part of President Biden’s plan to reduce greenhouse emissions that are driving global climate change.”
The US falls behind the leading wind power countries in offshore capacity. It currently has 42 MW of offshore capacity, with another 51,400 MW in the pipeline. China is the leader with 31,400 MW of offshore capacity and the United Kingdom is second, with 13,900 MW. One answer might be wind farms far out in the ocean, not anchored to the bottom of the sea, but floating.
Sources: Kate Selig, “The Future of East Coast Wind Power Could Ride On This Jersey Beach Town, Washington Post, August 8, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/08/offshore-wind-energy-east-coast/; “Offshore Wind: Market Report,” Clean Power, May 2023, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ACP_Offshore_Wind_Market_Report_2023_PUBLIC.pdf.
While many of the wind farms are on land, others are planted in the sea, usually in shallow waters. Several of the barriers to wind farms along coastal waters, particularly in the United States, have been objections to the noise, the detriment to marine life, and the inevitable charges that windfarms just miles off the coast ruin the view. Most recently there have been concerted efforts in Ocean City and Cape May County, New Jersey, to block a ninety-eight-unit windmill farm, which would supply power to half a million homes. But some locals (and outside groups assisting them) are adamantly opposed to windfarms just miles off their coastline. As environmental journalist Kate Selig reported, if the wind farm opponents succeed, “they hope to create a template for derailing some thirty-one offshore wind projects in various stages of development and construction off the East Coast, a key part of President Biden’s plan to reduce greenhouse emissions that are driving global climate change.”
The US falls behind the leading wind power countries in offshore capacity. It currently has 42 MW of offshore capacity, with another 51,400 MW in the pipeline. China is the leader with 31,400 MW of offshore capacity and the United Kingdom is second, with 13,900 MW. One answer might be wind farms far out in the ocean, not anchored to the bottom of the sea, but floating.
Sources: Kate Selig, “The Future of East Coast Wind Power Could Ride On This Jersey Beach Town, Washington Post, August 8, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/08/offshore-wind-energy-east-coast/; “Offshore Wind: Market Report,” Clean Power, May 2023, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ACP_Offshore_Wind_Market_Report_2023_PUBLIC.pdf.
Total Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: We’re Number 2; Per Capita Emissions: We’re Number 2
Together, India, China, and the United States contribute 42.6 percent of total emissions; the bottom 100 countries account for just 2.9 percent of emissions. Though India is a major GHG contributor, on a per capita basis this largest country in the world falls well below many industrialized countries. This ranking incorporates the twenty-seven nations of the European Union into one entity. The United States ranks second in both the total amount of GHG emissions and second in per capita emissions. Canada, ranking tenth in total emissions, ranks number one in greenhouse emissions per capita.
In 2022, China led the way with 12,795 Metric tons of CO2, ranking 6th per capita. The United States emitted less than half (6,001 Metric tons) of China’s emissions, but ranked 2nd per capita. India was third in total emissions (3,994), but 10th in per capita emissions. While Canada had the highest greenhouse emissions per capita, when looking at countries outside of the OECD, Saudi Arabia had a much higher per capita emissions than Canada.
Sources: “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Government of Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html; World Resources Institute, https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters.
Together, India, China, and the United States contribute 42.6 percent of total emissions; the bottom 100 countries account for just 2.9 percent of emissions. Though India is a major GHG contributor, on a per capita basis this largest country in the world falls well below many industrialized countries. This ranking incorporates the twenty-seven nations of the European Union into one entity. The United States ranks second in both the total amount of GHG emissions and second in per capita emissions. Canada, ranking tenth in total emissions, ranks number one in greenhouse emissions per capita.
In 2022, China led the way with 12,795 Metric tons of CO2, ranking 6th per capita. The United States emitted less than half (6,001 Metric tons) of China’s emissions, but ranked 2nd per capita. India was third in total emissions (3,994), but 10th in per capita emissions. While Canada had the highest greenhouse emissions per capita, when looking at countries outside of the OECD, Saudi Arabia had a much higher per capita emissions than Canada.
Sources: “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Government of Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html; World Resources Institute, https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters.
Best Climate Performance: We’re Number 52
Since 2005, the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) has been grading the climate mitigation performances of sixty countries and the European Union. Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute, and the Climate Action Network developed this independent ranking, drawing on the advice of 450 climate and policy experts, measuring the performance of these countries, which emit some 92 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. The CCPI considers four main factors: greenhouse gas emissions (40 percent of overall score), renewable energy (20 percent), energy use (20 percent), and climate policy (20 percent). The CCPI ranking board decided to leave the first three positions blank on the 2023 ranking, noting that no country had performed well enough to be considered in the highest ranking.
The United States ranked 52nd out of 60 countries. Why is the US so embarrassing low on this ranking? The CCPI recognized the targets and policies for climate action announced by the Biden administration, citing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, with its $21 billion on environmental projects, $7.5 billion for electric vehicles, and $65 billion for improving the power infrastructure and adjustments to renewable energy. It also acknowledges the Biden administration’s net-zero emissions target for 2050 and a 2030 goal of cutting 2005-level greenhouse gases by 50-52 percent. The impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, with its historic emphasis on climate change mitigation, is not factored into this analysis.
The CCPI report concludes that its country experts “welcome the US government’s new commitments. They note the obstructing role the Republican opposition plays in climate politics. However, the experts criticize that some policies lack a mandatory character, and implementation will not be quick enough. The main shortcoming described is that the US will not halt domestic fossil fuel extraction, and there are still fossil fuel subsidies in place.” But the US ranking on the CCPI listing has been worse: last time it was measured, in 2021, the United States sat at 55th place. With a new Trump presidential term, America’s place in the CCPI rankings will surely suffer.
Sources: Our World in Data,
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-capita-vs-renewable-electricity?tab=table and Global Carbon Project, https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/. Rachel Hellman, “US Lags in Latest Climate Protection Rankings,” US News, February 28, 2022, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-02-28/denmark-shines-u-s-lags-in-latest-climate-protection-rankings. Climate Change Performance Index 2023, https://ccpi.org/ranking/ (accessed October 14, 2023).
How Did They Do It? Carbon Pricing and Cap-and-Trade in the European Union.
How Did They Do It? Turning Carbon Dioxide into Stone in Iceland
Since 2005, the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) has been grading the climate mitigation performances of sixty countries and the European Union. Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute, and the Climate Action Network developed this independent ranking, drawing on the advice of 450 climate and policy experts, measuring the performance of these countries, which emit some 92 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. The CCPI considers four main factors: greenhouse gas emissions (40 percent of overall score), renewable energy (20 percent), energy use (20 percent), and climate policy (20 percent). The CCPI ranking board decided to leave the first three positions blank on the 2023 ranking, noting that no country had performed well enough to be considered in the highest ranking.
The United States ranked 52nd out of 60 countries. Why is the US so embarrassing low on this ranking? The CCPI recognized the targets and policies for climate action announced by the Biden administration, citing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, with its $21 billion on environmental projects, $7.5 billion for electric vehicles, and $65 billion for improving the power infrastructure and adjustments to renewable energy. It also acknowledges the Biden administration’s net-zero emissions target for 2050 and a 2030 goal of cutting 2005-level greenhouse gases by 50-52 percent. The impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, with its historic emphasis on climate change mitigation, is not factored into this analysis.
The CCPI report concludes that its country experts “welcome the US government’s new commitments. They note the obstructing role the Republican opposition plays in climate politics. However, the experts criticize that some policies lack a mandatory character, and implementation will not be quick enough. The main shortcoming described is that the US will not halt domestic fossil fuel extraction, and there are still fossil fuel subsidies in place.” But the US ranking on the CCPI listing has been worse: last time it was measured, in 2021, the United States sat at 55th place. With a new Trump presidential term, America’s place in the CCPI rankings will surely suffer.
Sources: Our World in Data,
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-capita-vs-renewable-electricity?tab=table and Global Carbon Project, https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/. Rachel Hellman, “US Lags in Latest Climate Protection Rankings,” US News, February 28, 2022, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-02-28/denmark-shines-u-s-lags-in-latest-climate-protection-rankings. Climate Change Performance Index 2023, https://ccpi.org/ranking/ (accessed October 14, 2023).
How Did They Do It? Carbon Pricing and Cap-and-Trade in the European Union.
How Did They Do It? Turning Carbon Dioxide into Stone in Iceland
International Leadership on the Environment: Sinking Fast
With the Republican Party recapturing the White House and Congress in 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation already has the answer to America’s climate problems. It is a “battle plan” for the first 180 days of a Republican in the White House. Called Project 2025, it would lead to “dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels,” reported journalist Lisa Friedman. Project 2025 calls for “shredding regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells and power plants, dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.” The nearly 1,000-page plan was created by the Heritage Foundation, working closely with at least a dozen conservative and climate-denying think thanks and advocacy groups like the Heartland Institute or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The plan called for the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act with its landmark climate change programs. “This agenda would be laughable if the consequences of it weren’t so dire,” said Christy Goldfuss, chief policy impact officer for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Source: Lisa Friedman, “A Republican 2024 Climate Strategy: More Drilling, Less Clean Energy,” New York Times, August 4, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/climate/republicans-climate-project2025.html.
With the Republican Party recapturing the White House and Congress in 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation already has the answer to America’s climate problems. It is a “battle plan” for the first 180 days of a Republican in the White House. Called Project 2025, it would lead to “dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels,” reported journalist Lisa Friedman. Project 2025 calls for “shredding regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells and power plants, dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.” The nearly 1,000-page plan was created by the Heritage Foundation, working closely with at least a dozen conservative and climate-denying think thanks and advocacy groups like the Heartland Institute or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The plan called for the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act with its landmark climate change programs. “This agenda would be laughable if the consequences of it weren’t so dire,” said Christy Goldfuss, chief policy impact officer for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Source: Lisa Friedman, “A Republican 2024 Climate Strategy: More Drilling, Less Clean Energy,” New York Times, August 4, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/climate/republicans-climate-project2025.html.
President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements.” This withdraws the US from the Paris Climate Accord Trump in his first term had withdrawn the US from the Paris agreement; then Biden promptly returned the US to the Paris agreement. The Executive Order also cancelled the Biden International Climate finance plan.