On November 24, 2025, President Donald Trump doubled down on his promise to boost American oil and gas production, marking a sharp reversal from the climate-focused policies of his predecessor, Joe Biden. The move comes as global climate politics are shifting, and the world’s most influential climate summit—COP30—wrapped up in Belém, Brazil, under a cloud of both literal and political smoke.
Biden’s administration had spent years reining in fossil fuel development, reducing the number of federal land leases for drilling and expanding protected areas by millions of acres. Trump, meanwhile, has campaigned relentlessly on what he calls an “America First” energy policy, reviving the old “drill baby, drill” slogan that once rallied his base. According to reporting from The Baltimore Sun, Trump’s new plan stands in stark contrast to Biden’s, signaling a renewed commitment to fossil fuel extraction on federal lands.
While Trump was busy pushing his domestic energy agenda, the world’s attention was momentarily fixed on COP30, the United Nations’ latest climate conference. Ironically, the event had to be evacuated after a fire broke out at the venue—a dramatic interruption, though not the biggest problem facing the summit. As Newsweek noted, the gathering assembled nearly 200 countries a decade after the landmark Paris Climate Agreement, which aimed to limit global warming to 1.5°C by slashing carbon emissions, especially from burning fossil fuels.
This year, the United States didn’t even send an official federal representative to the talks. Instead, California Governor Gavin Newsom, already seen as a 2028 presidential hopeful, played the role of America’s climate champion. Newsom took the opportunity to mock Trump, calling him an “invasive species,” and declared he didn’t want the United States to become a “footnote on climate policy.” But as the conference ended, it was Newsom’s vision that seemed at risk of irrelevance, while Trump’s absence was felt in the shifting winds of global climate priorities.
Trump’s antagonism to the Paris Agreement is well known. He has twice pulled the United States out of the pact, dismissing the science behind it and blasting its policies as unfair to American interests. In Trump’s view, as reported by Newsweek, the United States—the world’s largest oil producer—shouldn’t hobble itself by cutting fossil fuel use while competitors like China continue to expand their own carbon footprints. His skepticism about climate science, including his infamous claim that climate change is a “Chinese hoax,” has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and Democrats alike. Yet, his broader “America First” approach resonates with those who see climate policy as a potential economic handicap.
The political right in the United States is hardly apologetic about this stance. Trump’s energy secretary, Chris Wright, dismissed the entire COP30 summit as “essentially a hoax” and accused the UN of not being “an honest organization looking to better human lives.” Meanwhile, European leaders, including EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra and UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, pushed for a credible plan to “transition away” from oil, gas, and coal. India, representing many emerging economies, insisted that any transition must be “just” and argued that developed nations should provide climate finance “in trillions, not billions.”
The reality on the ground, however, is more complicated than any single leader’s rhetoric. Since Trump’s first withdrawal from the Paris Accords in 2017, the global debate on climate action has subtly shifted. Climate change has slipped down the list of priorities for voters in industrialized countries. An AP-NORC survey conducted at the start of 2025 found that only 21 percent of Americans listed “environment/climate change” among their top five concerns—falling behind issues like immigration, the economy, and inflation. Monmouth University’s polling in May showed that only 46 percent of Americans now call climate change a “very serious problem,” down from 56 percent in 2021. Even among those who care, the intensity is waning: Pew’s 2024 survey showed just 36 percent described climate as a “very big problem,” compared to 47 percent three years earlier.
This trend isn’t isolated to the United States. In Europe, climate remains a significant concern, but the 2024 EU elections saw voters prioritize the economy, migration, and war ahead of climate—leaving it ranked about fifth in major member states. Investment numbers tell a similar story. The International Energy Agency estimates that global clean-energy investment in 2025 will hit $2.2 trillion, nearly double the $1 trillion going into fossil fuels. Still, fossil fuel spending remains stubbornly high, and in some regions, is even accelerating. In China, for example, coal power approvals surged to their highest level since 2015, with 114 gigawatts of new capacity approved in 2023 and more projects underway in 2024.
These patterns have real consequences. The International Energy Agency’s models suggest that if the world sticks to current policies, we’re headed for “almost 3°C” of warming by 2100. Even if governments fully implement their stated commitments, the world is still on track for “around 2.5°C.” That means the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement is, for now, out of reach.
Some climate advocates are beginning to acknowledge this reality. Bill Gates, in a memo released before COP30, called for a new, more pragmatic approach. He argued that the world should focus less on the temperature target and more on “improving lives,” especially for the poorest and most vulnerable. Gates acknowledged that temperatures will likely rise 2 to 3°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The Gates Foundation followed up with a $1.4 billion package at COP30, aimed at helping smallholder farmers build resilience to climate impacts. While some activists accused Gates of setting up “straw-man” arguments, his message resonated with the political center, where adaptation funding is often more palatable than outright bans or mandates.
The changing global mood was reflected in the final COP30 agreement. Early drafts called for a clear transition away from fossil fuels, but by the end, that language had been stripped out. The final text spoke only in vague terms about declining fossil fuel use as “irreversible” and the “trend of the future.” India and China, joined by fossil fuel exporters like Saudi Arabia and Russia, pushed for these changes—much to the frustration of European leaders and low-lying island nations threatened by rising seas. As Newsweek observed, the final COP30 text looked a lot more like Trump’s vision than Newsom’s.
For now, Trump’s “drill baby, drill” mantra is back in the headlines, and climate activists face a world where economic and political realities are reshaping the fight against global warming. The tension between ambition and pragmatism, adaptation and mitigation, is likely to define the next chapter in the world’s climate story.
