The US Senate Finance Committee, during the confirmation hearing of the Treasury Secretary, fell short of showering praise and admiration for China’s significant contribution to addressing the foremost global challenges of global warming, climate change, ozone layer depletion, glacier melting, and rising sea levels—all of which have, are, and will continue to wreak havoc on humanity if climate change is not reversed in the most urgent manner.
They acknowledged, in so many words, that China is playing a pivotal role in reversing climate change by creating a global clean energy supply chain, supplying over 80% of the world’s solar panels, 60% of global wind turbines, and nearly 70% of lithium-ion batteries, which are critical for electric vehicles, renewable energy storage, and mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change worldwide.
Senators Bill Cassidy and John Barrasso noted that China has played its part by creating a reliable supply chain to support global technology and energy markets, while also admitting the shortcomings of the United States, which has left the entire burden of building a reliable alternative energy supply chain to China.
As a result, China has become the world’s largest exporter of key renewable energy infrastructure to both the US and the global market, offering cost-effective and high-quality products.
The senators lamented the fact that while China has been developing critical clean energy infrastructure, the US has neglected this vital sector, failing to take the necessary measures to promote clean energy by providing incentives, reducing regulatory barriers, and establishing a stable supply chain for domestic clean energy industries. They emphasized the need for domestic energy production and onshore critical manufacturing to achieve energy independence.
While some senators advocated the need for protecting local clean energy industries by imposing heavy tariffs on foreign imports, others forcefully argued against such measures, warning that tariffs on clean energy imports would increase costs for American consumers and slow the transition to renewables.
Meanwhile, some senators proposed a balanced approach, combining both tariffs and tax incentives for US manufacturing to ensure that America becomes a global leader in energy production while maintaining affordability.
To the surprise of the entire world, especially the signatory countries of the Paris Accord, the senators unveiled an alternative plan that would accelerate climate change, increase greenhouse gas emissions, and significantly exacerbate global warming.
Their strategy includes substantially increasing federal investments in traditional and indigenous American energy resources, such as natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear power, while expanding refining capacity and strengthening domestic coal and nuclear industries to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources.
Additionally, they pledged to leverage oil and gas exports to create dependence among other nations, using the US’s dominant position to economically harm perceived adversaries, including Iran, North Korea, and China, all while completely ignoring the disastrous impact of this short-sighted policy on climate change.
The US, which was expected to lead the global transition toward clean energy, is instead reverting to traditional and conventional energy sources—a move that contradicts its responsibility as a global leader in environmental protection.
This shift threatens to undo progress in reducing carbon emissions and undermines the growing clean energy sector, which has made groundbreaking advancements in renewable power generation, electric transportation, and sustainable technology.
As a result, electric automotive manufacturers and clean energy power companies, which have been developing environment-friendly power plants, railway engines, heavy machinery, cars, motorcycles, scooters, and other electric gadgets, will face significant financial challenges.
The cost of electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy infrastructure will increase, making them less competitive compared to combustion-engine vehicles and fossil fuel-based technologies.
Consequently, a massive return to gasoline and diesel-powered automobiles will lead to a dramatic rise in carbon emissions, causing irreversible damage to the planet. In the long run, if this trend continues, humanity may be left with no choice but to seek survival on other planets due to the devastating environmental consequences on Earth.
Additionally, the reliance on fossil fuels will severely impact the clean energy sector. With an abundant supply of gas and oil flooding the market, and the US shifting from a top fossil fuel consumer to a major producer, global oil and gas prices will plummet to historic lows.
As a result, consumers worldwide will revert to cheaper and more convenient traditional fuels, pushing governments and industries to reinvest in fossil fuel production and infrastructure rather than clean energy. This will stall investments in renewable energy, slow down technological advancements in the sector, and reduce demand for clean energy solutions.
Many companies specializing in renewable energy could struggle financially, losing momentum, and some may even go bankrupt in the long run due to declining investments and market support.
This reversal is particularly ironic given that Trump’s campaign slogan emphasizes a return to “common sense”, yet abandoning clean energy in favor of fossil fuels defies both common sense and conventional wisdom.
The true common sense approach acknowledges that Earth is the only known planet capable of sustaining organic life, and the focus should be on preserving its ecosystem rather than accelerating its destruction.
While alternative energy technologies are making groundbreaking innovations and improving in efficacy and efficiency, abandoning these advancements will hinder global efforts to combat climate change.
If the US reverts to traditional energy sources, it will set a dangerous precedent that will likely encourage other nations, particularly those with fewer resources, to follow suit—not out of preference, but out of necessity. Unlike the US, which has immense financial and technological resources to partially mitigate some environmental damage, less developed nations will lack the means to transition to cleaner alternatives.
As a result, global greenhouse gas emissions will rise exponentially, further intensifying global warming, depleting the ozone layer, accelerating glacier melting, rising sea levels, and increasing the frequency of catastrophic natural disasters, such as tsunamis, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and extreme weather events.
Had the Paris Accord been fully adhered to, the world could have seen visible improvements in the climate, potentially allowing for the recovery of many species of flora and fauna that are rapidly vanishing due to human-induced environmental degradation.
Thus, the US’s short-sighted shift back to fossil fuels will not only undermine global climate efforts but also cripple the clean energy sector, making the world more reliant on unsustainable resources while accelerating climate change and environmental degradation at an alarming rate.
Let us hope that common sense prevails and that the new Trump administration reconsiders its energy policy—not only in the best interest of the American people but also for the well-being of the entire world.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
The writer is a former press minister to Embassy of Pakistan to France
Comments