In a striking shift that’s reverberating through the global energy and climate landscape, the United States is steering away from its previous green commitments and doubling down on fossil fuel production—a move that’s set to boost its economy but may deal a blow to worldwide efforts against climate change. The pivot, championed by President Donald Trump’s administration, comes at a time when the world’s second-largest polluter is also a top oil and gas producer, supplying energy both at home and abroad.
According to a November 2025 analysis by Bloomberg Economics, abandoning clean energy goals in favor of fossil fuels could help the US economy grow about 1% more in GDP through 2050 compared to staying the course on the clean energy transition. This finding, echoed by Business Standard, is rooted in the premise that selling more fossil fuels and sidestepping the expenses of green regulations would make the US more competitive—especially as global energy demand surges, partly due to the explosion of AI data centers.
But there’s a catch. If the US is the lone wolf in this strategy, the world economy could actually shrink by 0.2% compared to a scenario where everyone sticks with renewables. The modeling, based on projections from BloombergNEF, factors in not just energy demand and supply but also the economic impacts of climate change and the costs of curbing emissions. The real kicker, though, is that the most severe physical damages from global warming are expected to hit after 2050, with extreme weather and climate inaction ramping up economic pain for everyone.
Bloomberg Economics’ Eleonora Mavroeidi and Maeva Cousin, co-authors of the analysis, put it bluntly: “If Trump alone backs out on the transition, the US wins. If other countries do the same, the US loses, and so does almost everyone else.” This, they argue, is a textbook example of the tragedy of the commons—where individual actors chasing their own interests can end up making things worse for the collective.
The US’s about-face on climate policy is set to be on full display at the upcoming COP30 climate conference in Belém, Brazil. High-level US representatives are skipping the event, leaving the rest of the world to wrestle with thorny issues like 2035 emissions goals and scaling up climate finance for developing nations and small island states. The absence is being read as a clear signal of the administration’s priorities.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been making moves to lock in its fossil fuel advantage. Over the summer of 2025, a trade deal with the European Union was inked, with EU member countries agreeing to purchase a staggering $750 billion in US oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy. This agreement not only cements the US’s role as an energy powerhouse but also gives its fossil fuel industry a major leg up, as it avoids the costs and constraints of green regulations that competitors in other countries might still face.
But what if others follow suit? Bloomberg Economics’ modeling suggests that if other countries abandon their green energy goals as well, both the US and the global economy would contract by roughly 1%, and global CO2 emissions would surge by about 75%. The consequences would be felt most acutely in hotter, lower-income countries—India, Vietnam, Indonesia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and North Africa are all expected to suffer the greatest fallout from climate change. Wealthier, cooler countries like the US and Canada are more insulated, at least in the short run, but no one is truly off the hook.
“Doing nothing is a costly strategy, especially for countries already facing intense heat with a limited capacity to adapt,” the Bloomberg Economics report warns. Richer countries might be hit less severely at first, but their costs are expected to climb over time as well.
This debate over the economic and environmental costs of energy policy isn’t new. It echoes back to the early 2000s, when former Vice President Dick Cheney—who died at age 84 on November 4, 2025—helped shape the nation’s energy agenda. Cheney, once CEO of Halliburton, is often associated with the so-called “Halliburton loophole” from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That provision exempted hydraulic fracturing (fracking) from the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control rules, effectively taking fracking out of the Environmental Protection Agency’s hands. This exemption, controversial from the start, has been both credited and blamed for the fracking boom that ultimately made the US a net petroleum exporter by 2020, during Trump’s first term.
While Cheney’s 2001 National Energy Policy Development Group report advocated for an “all-of-the-above” energy approach—including renewables like wind and solar—it didn’t explicitly call for a fracking exemption. The Energy Policy Act that followed was a sprawling, 550-page piece of legislation packed with incentives for nuclear, fossil, and renewable energy. But it was the fracking exemption that drew the most fire from environmentalists, who accused Cheney of fostering secrecy and regulatory loopholes around fracking operations. Sandra Steingraber, senior scientist at the Science and Environmental Health Network, put it starkly: “More than any other person Dick Cheney is responsible for the veil of secrecy and lies that surround fracking operations, and they are enshrined into law that he created.”
Industry supporters, however, contend that the so-called loophole wasn’t even an exemption, arguing that the EPA had not regulated fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act outside of Alabama. Chris Tucker of FTI Consulting, who helped develop the industry’s rapid response to fracking critics, remarked, “The former vice president was just as surprised as anyone to have this thing, of all things, ascribed to him and his former company. It was one of those stories that was too good to check, I think.”
The legacy of these policies is now playing out in real time. The US’s current push for fossil fuel “energy dominance” under Trump is even more aggressive than the Bush-Cheney era’s “all-of-the-above” approach, which at least gave a nod to renewables. The current administration’s willingness to put the pedal to the metal on oil and gas has left Congress in the dust and set the stage for a global showdown over the future of energy and climate policy.
As the world watches the US’s next moves, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The choices made today—whether to pursue short-term economic gains or invest in a sustainable future—will shape not just the next quarter-century, but the fate of communities and countries far beyond America’s borders.
