Climate Hypocrisy: Why Trump Is Not The First, And Won't Be The Last, US President To Make Climate U-Turns

On 1 June 2017, then United States (US) President Donald Trump announced that the US would cease all participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation.

Eight years later, withdrawing from the Paris climate deal was again among the very first executive orders Trump signed after the inauguration that marked his second term as US president.

Climate activists often recoil at the mention of Trump. His vocal advocacy for fossil fuels, his enthusiasm for oil (“We will drill, baby, drill,” he proclaimed at his earlier inaugural), and his dismissal of climate change as “one of the great scams” make him seem like the epitome of environmental indifference.

Yet, Trump’s approach offers a brutally honest reflection of what the US has been doing for decades — prioritising national interests over global climate commitments.

Trump Is No Different

Since the dawn of climate negotiations, the US — a nation at the forefront of emphasising the need to make wise use of the remaining global carbon budget — has seldom followed through on its promises.

The country has consistently obstructed meaningful action since the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the Earth Summit in 1992.

Following the success of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which united the world to repair the ozone hole, the future of climate diplomacy seemed promising. However, the Montreal Protocol proved to be a rare instance of successful global consensus and action.

Consider the Kyoto Protocol, the next significant accord born out of the Earth Summit. Formulated to impose legally binding commitments on developed countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5 per cent below 1990 levels, the protocol was adopted in 1997 and came into force in 2005.

Although the US initially signed it with enthusiasm, the accord marked the beginning of America’s tradition of signing but not ratifying global climate treaties. Without ratification — the step that demonstrates true commitment to international agreements — such signatures amount to mere rhetoric.

In fact, Washington not only refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol but ultimately withdrew entirely during George W Bush’s presidency.

Like Trump, Bush was a climate sceptic, stating during his 2000 presidential campaign: “The Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy in a negative way. We do not know how much our climate could or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.”

When the Kyoto Protocol failed to achieve its goals, countries in 2015 adopted a more conciliatory approach to combating climate change: the Paris Agreement.

After the US opposed any language mandating emission cuts, nations agreed to voluntary climate goals through nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

The aim was to limit global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to keep it below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), and to achieve net-zero emissions in the latter half of the century.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which imposed binding targets on developed countries while exempting developing nations, the Paris Agreement’s voluntary nature made it more inclusive. However, this lack of enforceable measures renders the agreement largely symbolic.

This is why the political drama surrounding it — from Trump’s contemptuous withdrawal to Joe Biden’s celebrated re-entry — seems almost farcical.

Despite its renewed participation, the US remains the second-largest global greenhouse gas emitter, trailing only China.

During Biden’s presidency, US crude oil production hit a record high of 12.9 million barrels per day in 2023. His administration also approved more than 6,430 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years — a number surpassing Trump’s first term.

Blaming Trump alone, therefore, is misplaced. He merely laid bare the superficiality of America’s climate commitments, exposing the hollow discourse that has historically defined its policies.

US Policy of “Sign, Don’t Ratify”

The US’ hypocrisy extends beyond climate negotiations. The pattern of making grand declarations at global summits while failing to follow through domestically is evident in other environmental treaties as well.

For example, Washington frequently criticises China’s actions in the South China Sea, citing violations of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — a treaty China has ratified but the US has not.

Although President Ronald Reagan initially refused to sign the treaty, the US eventually signed in 1994. However, ratification, which requires a two-thirds Senate majority, remains elusive.

Non-ratification has significant consequences. For instance, UNCLOS mandates precautionary environmental measures for deep-sea mining — regulations the US can bypass due to its non-ratifying status.

Similarly, the US has declined to ratify the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), despite playing a pivotal role in drafting it. After encouraging 150 members sign it, George W. Bush, echoing his stance on the Kyoto Protocol, refused to enter the treaty. Though the Bill Clinton signed the treat in 1999, republican opponents argued that the Convention on Biological Diversity would compromise American sovereignty, threaten commercial interests, and impose significant financial obligations. Consequently, the United States remains a non-ratifying signatory, perpetuating its pattern of international environmental treaty ambivalence.

Another environmental treaty the United States has eschewed. Despite 184 countries ratifying this agreement targeting long-lasting, bio accumulative chemicals, the U.S. remains conspicuously out of this club.

Similar is the case with the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes, which the US (the world’s largest contributor of plastic waste) has also refused to ratify.

This non-ratification allows the US to continue exporting hazardous materials such as e waste to developing countries, exacerbating environmental and health crises.

The Indian Way

In contrast, India has ratified all major environmental treaties while pragmatically balancing economic development with climate concerns.

As a developing nation with negligible per capita and historical emissions, India has adhered to the UNFCCC’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR). This principle recognises that countries should address environmental challenges based on their capabilities and contributions to the problem.

At the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) of the UNFCCC in Azerbaijan, India and other global south nations criticised the West’s insufficient climate finance pledges. While developed countries promised $300 billion by 2035, the required sum is estimated at $1.3 trillion to help developing nations combat the effects of climate change.

India has also resisted attempts to dilute the CBDR principle. For example, it opposed the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes carbon costs on imports to align with EU standards.

Leena Nandan, Secretary of the Environment, Forest, and Climate Change Ministry, stated: “Where is the justice when developed nations, after consuming the bulk of the carbon space, impose coercive trade measures instead of facilitating decarbonisation?”

Unless the global north is willing to pay for the measures required to not worsen the climate damage it has already caused, its virtue signalling deserves to be called out.

This was spotlighted when at COP29,  Shyam Saran, former Special Envoy and Chief Negotiator on Climate Change, stated-

"There's this psychological warfare where India is often painted as standing in the way of international consensus. All we are asking is for developed nations to fulfill commitments they have already made,"

A Repeat

The story of climate diplomacy is complex, and the US exemplifies global climate hypocrisy. Trump is not an anomaly; he is simply the bluntest expression of a longstanding pattern. For decades, America has signed climate treaties with one hand while drilling for oil with the other.

Real climate action requires more than lofty speeches and symbolic signatures. It demands genuine commitment, transparency, and a willingness to make tough economic choices for the planet’s survival.

At present, the US falls far short of that standard, perpetuating a cycle of environmental lip service that threatens global sustainability.