President Donald Trump’s second administration has by now waged numerous wars, both literal and metaphorical. But amid the catastrophic absurdity of the past two years, a twisted case of kismet has emerged: Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran may have done the environment a favor in the process.
Yes, it is hard to imagine Trump doing anything that benefits the climate. But according to a Washington Post analysis of International Energy Agency data, that’s exactly what has happened. The IEA initially predicted a big jump in emissions this year compared with last year. But energy shipments from the Middle East remain stymied by Tehran closing the Strait of Hormuz. That in turn has prompted a reduction in oil and gas consumption around the world, which has significantly reduced overall carbon emissions. As the Post reported:
The IEA analysis suggests global demand for oil in 2026 will decline 2.5 percent compared with last year. That would erase the amount of greenhouse gas emissions created by 42 million internal combustion engine cars.
And the IEA had initially projected the world’s appetite for oil and gas would grow significantly over last year, so much so that the difference between its January projections and what is actually happening is the equivalent of avoiding the emissions from 103 million cars.
I cannot stress enough how inadvertent this outcome is. The war that Trump launched in February has been horrific and costly in terms of human life, its economic effects at home and the crushing political impact on his party before a crucial election. There’s no world in which Trump, whose energy policy famously boils down to “drill, baby, drill,” had environmentalist goals in mind ahead of greenlighting the war. (Seven months later, there’s little evidence Trump had concrete goals in mind at all.)
Trump has appointed a man who is, at best, climate apathetic to head the Environmental Protection Agency and an outright climate skeptic to oversee the newest draft of the National Climate Assessment. As a result, major regulations intended to reduce emissions and initiatives to promote cleaner energy have been gutted and branded as part of a “Green New Scam.”
What makes this case even more intriguing is that Trump was also in office the last time we saw such a major dip in global carbon output.
In early 2020, when Covid-19 was just beginning to take hold, America was woefully unprepared for a pandemic. After Trump spent weeks publicly denying the virus was a major threat, it became clear that the administration was ill equipped to effectively contain it. The resulting nationwide quarantines were emulated on a global scale, prompting a massive slowdown in economic output.
With that reduced demand, fossil fuel consumption and the resultant CO2 emissions also plummeted. Studies would show that for a moment, as the saying went, nature was healing — but only for a moment. As lockdowns ended and economies came back to life, demand rose again to undo most of the progress that had been made.
The longer the conflict persists and oil shipments remain hindered, the more likely the shifts in oil demand we’re seeing are to become permanent.
As Grist’s Kate Yoder recently noted, Americans have changed some behaviors while facing higher gas prices, such as driving less and utilizing public transportation more. Globally there’s been a new interest in insulating against the kind of energy shocks the Iran war and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sparked. Tellingly, China has seen a boom in exports of its solar panels and electric vehicles since February as Asian consumers especially look for alternatives to fossil fuels.
Given the difficulties Trump has had, there’s no telling when or how the Iran war will end. But the longer the conflict persists and oil shipments remain hindered, the more likely the shifts in oil demand we’re seeing are to become permanent.
This administration doing anything to purposefully encourage that outcome is deeply unlikely. But if I had a nickel for every time Trump accidentally drove down global carbon emissions through a terrible policy decision, I’d have two nickels. Which, as a fictional mad scientist once said, “isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice, right?”
The post How Trump’s terrible policy decisions led to this one surprising outcome appeared first on MS NOW.
Author: Source Author
From MS Now.
Leave a Reply