The Cynicism of Trump’s Climate Policy

President Trump has previously called climate change a “hoax” and a “scam.” But last month, when the Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding the conclusion that greenhouse-gas emissions from the power sector “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” it did not question the reality of climate change.

Instead, it claimed that large emissions reductions will not be enough to avert harm, and the country is better off doing nothing at all.

This is utter nihilism.

It is also completely wrong.

The power sector is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States (only transportation emits more), accounting for approximately 24 percent of the country’s emissions.

The U.S., in turn, is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, after China, accounting for approximately 12 percent of the global total.

If the U.S. power sector were a country, it would be the sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases (fifth if European Union countries were counted individually rather than as a single jurisdiction).

The EPA’s argument is similar to one the agency made in February, when it said that eliminating such emissions from the transportation sector would likewise not make an appreciable difference.

Putting these two claims together magnifies the brazenness: The EPA argues that eliminating or substantially reducing about half of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions would be futile and would not meaningfully slow the pace of climate change.

It follows from the EPA’s logic that eliminating or substantially reducing the greenhouse-gas emissions of any other sector of the economy would be even more pointless.

And the same goes for the emissions of any sector of any country, anywhere in the world.

In fact, according to the EPA’s reasoning, nothing anyone could do anywhere would make any difference. (It also, relatedly, makes a legal claim that it doesn’t have the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions in the first place.) The agency’s approach is akin to saying that eating a whole loaf of bread is calorie-free as long as the bread is cut in sufficiently thin slices—they’re all so thin that they can’t possibly matter. [ Read: What does the climate movement do now? ] These are standards I know well.

From January 2023 to January 2025, when I served as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, I was responsible for the review of all significant executive-branch regulations, including this one.

The fact is that some of those slices are not thin at all.