How a Fossil Fuel President Gains Power Amid Environmental Crisis

Politics of Paradox: Leadership, Climate, and Collective Action

In recent months, I’ve avoided discussing the current political situation in the United States, even though my primary research interests - focused on the politics of climate change - closely intersect with it. Yesterday, however, a seismic shift occurred that forced us to revisit a timeless question.  What does politics truly mean?

Politics means different things to different people.  For some, politics embodies the pursuit of collective progress (some may also say happiness) -to find common ground and a shared vision for the future. For others is a murky game of power where pragmatism and self-interests often eclipse morality. The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that humans were “political animals” in that only by engaging in politics could humans reach their highest potential. Yet, the word "politics" itself often evokes cynicism and invokes images of individuals who use trickery or manipulation to obtain or preserve their status or authority.

Emotions are inextricably linked to politics. Anger, hatred, fear, love, admiration, awe and hope play a crucial role in shaping political opinions and decisions.  These emotions influence public opinion, ignite movements, and even determine election outcomes. But politics is also an arena where cold pragmatism overrides emotions and morality, where individuals are valued not for their work or character, but for how useful they can be in advancing broader agendas. This duality - the constant tension between emotions and cold pragmatism – is the essence of modern politics.

The re-election of Donald Trump is a striking example of this duality. His leadership reflects a prioritisation of immediate gains over collective good. The specifics of his policies are widely documented. Over the past few months, countless commentators, analysts, and journalists have dissected his administration's strategies and their implications. So, there is no reason to repeat them here.

For those paying attention, the trajectory of this administration's actions has been clear, and many of us have braced ourselves for the consequences of this approach. I presume that no one is surprised that he withdrew again the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. By declaring a national energy emergency, Trump doubled down on fossil fuels, championing oil and gas exploration, while showing his hostility to renewable energy sources. His actions prioritise short-term gains for corporate interests over long-term solutions to the climate crisis. The impact is clear: energy policies that bolster immediate economic interests while neglecting ethical considerations and the common good.

Ultimately, Trump’s re-election signals the continued embrace of a political ideology that privileges assertiveness and self-reliance. While his supporters may applaud these policies as a reflection of strength and independence, the reality is that they reflect a total disregard for shared global challenges that demand collective action.

Ironically, many people—residents of regions devastated by fossil-fuel-driven hurricanes or have their houses burned down in parts of Los Angeles, cheer a fossil fuel President Trump. This paradox speaks volumes about the emotionally charged relationship between human behaviour, politics, and climate change. It’s a reminder of the cognitive dissonance at play: cheering for policies that contribute to the very crises being endured.

Trump’s previous term has caused a pause in global climate action. Now, these policy reversals are expected to have substantial implications for both domestic and global climate action.  Unfortunately, now we cannot afford to lose more time.

---

This article is free to read, but if you found it useful, please consider subscribing or making a small donation at my Buy Me A Coffee page below. The Climate Historian is an independent publication, entirely supported by readers like you.