In stunning reversals, the United States and the United Kingdom have taken steps to roll back climate legislation that has proven impractical, with targets nearly impossible to achieve. The shift toward conventional and affordable fuel should serve as a model for developing nations, rather than forcing them to adopt renewable technologies that are costly and, in many cases, unsustainable.
The UK’s Conservative Party, or Tories, has pledged to replace the country’s climate legislation with a strategy for “cheap and reliable” energy. Party leader Kemi Badenoch announced plans to scrap the Climate Change Act, introduced by the Labor government in 2008, which committed the UK to reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050 through five-year carbon budgets.
Under Badenoch’s proposal, the “failed targets” would be scrapped and replaced with an energy strategy that puts “cheap and reliable energy as the foundation for economic growth.” Further, Badenoch said: “We want to leave a cleaner environment for our children, but not by bankrupting the country,” Badenoch said. “Our priority now is growth, cheaper energy, and protecting the natural landscapes we all love.”
Badenoch has previously said it is “impossible” for the UK to meet its net-zero targets and vowed to “maximize extraction” of oil and gas in the North Sea. She also said she discussed the issue with US President Donald Trump during a state dinner at Windsor Castle. Trump reportedly praised her speech in Aberdeen, saying, “I hear you and me [sic] agree on so many things.”
The Trump administration has likewise moved to scrap the Endangerment Finding — a key foundation of US climate policy that gave the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Established in 2009 under the Obama administration, the ruling was based on a 2007 Supreme Court decision declaring that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.
If repealed, it would gut the US government’s ability to regulate emissions and weaken future climate protections, including standards for vehicles and methane from oil and gas operations. Trump’s camp argues that the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate global climate pollutants and should be limited to addressing local or regional health hazards.
Amid these shifts by major economies, the Philippines reiterated its commitment to science- and evidence-based, transformative climate solutions. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., speaking at the 46th ASEAN plenary, said climate finance must be accessible and adequate for developing countries most affected by extreme weather events.
While the Philippines is among the world’s most disaster-prone nations, it still requires reliable and affordable energy to sustain growth — a challenge given the intermittent supply from renewable sources.
The policy reversals of two of the world’s most developed nations should provide food for thought in the global climate debate.