Climate Backpedaling in an Age of Urgency

A report published on June 19 delivered a stark reality check: at current rates, the world has less than three years before it crosses the critical threshold of 1.5°C in global warming. With just 143 billion tons of CO₂ left in the so-called “carbon budget” and annual emissions exceeding 46 billion tons, we are accelerating toward a planetary tipping point.

Instead of rising to meet this urgency, powerful actors, from U.S. policymakers to global oil giants, are systematically dismantling the fragile scaffolding of climate governance.

Trump’s War on Climate Institutions

On his first day back in the White House, Donald Trump signed an executive order questioning the legal basis of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, the 2009 ruling that allows regulation of greenhouse gases. Soon after, the Energy Department began hiring scientists with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry and conservative think tanks, such as Dr. Steven Koonin and Dr. Roy Spencer, who openly dispute the scientific consensus on climate change.

These hires are not innocent appointments but strategic placements. Their goal? To inject uncertainty into public discourse and erode the legal foundation for climate action.

This aligns with Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation aiming to hollow out federal institutions and replace them with ideologically loyal personnel. It is a calculated move to deregulate the fossil economy, not a call for better science.

Corporate Greenwashing Goes Institutional

Simultaneously, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a leading authority on voluntary corporate climate commitments, has seen mass resignations from its oil and gas advisory group. Shell, Aker BP, and Enbridge all walked away after SBTi circulated draft standards recommending an end to new oil and gas field development beyond 2027.

Rather than strengthening its stance, SBTi backpedaled. It weakened its guidance for financial institutions, pushing deadlines for halting insurance and finance of new fossil fuel projects to 2030. As one insider lamented: “The more we delay, the more cover we are providing to big oil.”

These developments reveal a troubling pattern. When voluntary initiatives clash with fossil profits, it is the science, not the emissions, that gets downgraded.

Oil Majors and Hollow Promises

Shell claims to remain committed to reaching net zero by 2050. Yet, it has already weakened its 2030 targets and scrapped its 2035 milestones. Aker BP’s exit statement claimed its withdrawal did "not reflect a lack of climate commitment," a claim as empty as Shell’s carbon neutrality rhetoric.

This is not climate leadership. It is reputational risk management masquerading as environmental responsibility. The public relations choreography of net zero pledges has little bearing when the underlying business model remains tied to fossil expansion.

Industrial Green Transitions

Amidst Western backsliding, a stark contrast is emerging elsewhere.

China is building industrial capacity at a scale unmatched in human history. It is now responsible for three-quarters of the world’s solar and wind power production, leading global supply chains in EVs, batteries, and green tech.

Brazil, powered by 90% renewable electricity, is repositioning itself as a green industrial power, attracting Chinese investment and exploring non-dollar trade settlement mechanisms to boost its economic sovereignty, even at the risk of Trump’s retaliatory 50% tariffs on imports.

These are not perfect models, but they demonstrate that strategic green development is possible, even in a fractured world.

Climate Delay Is the New Denial

We are no longer merely debating science. We are watching its deliberate dismantling. Trump’s appointments, corporate withdrawals from climate standards, and the weakening of global initiatives all point to a dangerous new phase: climate delay as institutional policy.

The remaining carbon budget is vanishing fast. What we do, or fail to do, within the next 1,000 days will determine the livability of the planet for generations. In this context, euphemisms about “net zero by 2050” or “voluntary standards” must be seen for what they are: a license to pollute now and pay never.