In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
Carbon emissions reduction goals set under the 2016 Paris Agreement are growing increasingly out of reach as energy demand soars, with many nations now facing intense pressure from the United States to abandon those targets entirely.
Rollbacks of rules and regulations meant to address climate change and the promotion of fossil fuels instead have been a hallmark of President Donald Trump‘s presidency at home and abroad.
Most recently, the administration threw cold water on international efforts to achieve “climate neutrality” by 2050, meaning that the total global amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere is no more than the amount removed naturally or through man-made carbon capture and storage projects.
This “net-zero” target, a central goal of the Paris Agreement signed 10 years ago, is meant to limit global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
In the last decade, signatories of the Paris Agreement have moved to decarbonize emissions-intensive industries, such as transportation, shipping, and energy production, by increasing the manufacturing of electric vehicles and green fuels, as well as the deployment of renewable wind and solar power.
Much of this has come in tandem with the accelerated phasing out of traditional fossil fuels such as coal.
As energy demand brought on by electrification and the development of artificial intelligence rises at a significant rate, however, there is widespread agreement that those emissions commitments are falling short.
Out of reach
George David Banks, a climate and energy adviser to Trump during his first administration, told the Washington Examiner that the signs that net-zero by 2050 is out of reach have been there since the Paris Agreement was signed.
“For those of us who’ve been tracking it closely … it’s pretty obvious that they were going to blow past the global carbon budget as it pertained to 1.5 degrees,” Banks said. “That was fantasy that they could ever sort of manage that.”
Banks claimed that the idea of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 was more of a “political decision” rather than one based on science, meant to motivate nations to take steps toward reducing emissions and tackling global warming.
“That’s always been the biggest problem with European climate policy that Democrats have adopted,” Banks said. “We set these lofty targets, and they just ‘happen.’ … It’s not based on reality.”
The challenge of achieving net-zero is enormous, as global emissions have yet to consistently decrease. In 2024, total energy-related carbon emissions hit an all-time high of more than 37,000 million metric tons, roughly 50% higher than preindustrial levels.
Lowering those emissions levels is only expected to become more difficult. The International Energy Agency estimates that, if there are no significant policy changes, fossil fuel demand will continue to rise through the end of the decade.
Hundreds of authors who have contributed to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports also expressed skepticism that net-zero by 2050 was achievable, according to a 2024 study.
The report, which surveyed 211 IPCC authors, found that few believe the global economy will be able to reach the Paris Agreement targets by midcentury. That does not mean net-zero won’t be hit ever, as 66% believed it can be achieved before 2085.
More scientists and self-proclaimed climate hawks are now admitting the 2050 goal is out of reach, with some leading names warning against focusing too much on short-term emissions goals.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates made waves last fall for his public pivot on how to best tackle climate change. He said that the sole focus on emissions reductions has diverted necessary resources from those most vulnerable.
“We need to keep backing the breakthroughs that will help the world reach zero emissions,” he said. “But we can’t cut funding for health and development — programs that help people stay resilient in the face of climate change — to do it.”
This view is in line with some of the Trump administration’s core criticisms of net-zero policy. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has accused any nation of prioritizing net-zero of committing “economic suicide.”
Wright has said that climate change is a real phenomenon but has insisted that efforts to lower emissions and curb global warming have turned into a “political cause,” sacrificing energy security and affordability as a result.
Wright has said that net-zero policies will lead to energy impoverishment, claiming the phasing out of fossil fuels such as oil and gas will make electricity and fuels unaffordable.
The European pushback
While the Trump administration is upping its pressure for international net-zero targets to be scrapped, publicly, European leaders are standing firm.
During an interview with the Washington Examiner, Jovita Neliupšienė, the European Union’s ambassador to the U.S., said climate-related policy appears to be an issue where the U.S. and the EU may have to “agree to disagree.”
“We have our policy choice, and the U.S. has its policy choice,” Neliupšienė said. “We do believe that we have a global responsibility to make sure that we have the planet for our children and grandchildren.”
When pressed on whether she believed the EU could hit net-zero by 2050, Neliupšienė remained optimistic.
“Otherwise I would not be working for the EU,” she said.
She admitted there is pressure on the EU to find ways to develop more efficient and cleaner energy sources at an affordable cost.
In addition to deploying cleaner technologies, the EU has imposed several sweeping regulations aimed at decarbonizing imports, including a tariff on carbon-intensive products and strict methane emissions reporting rules.
The Trump administration has lambasted these policies, claiming they will create major barriers to trade between the U.S. and the EU, particularly as the administration looks to increase exports of emissions-intensive goods, such as liquefied natural gas.
Neliupšienė indicated that, as the largest consumer of American LNG, the EU can leverage its position to still meet the bloc’s clean energy business interests.
“We buy the largest part of your LNG exports. We have a market, market rules, and we have an interest of our society, in our countries,” she said, of the EU’s decarbonization goals. “And I think this is where we’ll definitely find the common ground.”
Reframing the goal
The Trump administration tightened the screws on efforts to achieve net-zero in February, when Wright threatened to pull the U.S. out of the IEA.
The administration is becoming increasingly influential on the international stage in pressuring nations to pull back on efforts to mitigate climate change. Just last fall, the U.S. successfully delayed a vote on an international carbon tax on the shipping industry, which had been expected to be approved with little to no issue.
Growing skepticism about whether the 2050 net-zero target can be achieved may further give the U.S. leverage to pressure energy ministers to prioritize the production of traditional fossil fuels and abandon net-zero scenarios released by the IEA altogether.
The IEA publishes multiple energy scenarios and strategies exploring future trends of emissions, pollutants, and investments. Wright has claimed the net-zero specific scenario fails to account for “energy data” and is rather based on “climate ambitions.”
“The nations are free to engage in any agenda they want, but the energy agency, founded for energy security, needs to focus on energy security and not energy impoverishment,” he said.
This call to scrap the scenario entirely may not be a pathway to success, however, as tackling risks brought on by climate change has become a core value for many Western nations, particularly those in Europe.
Banks acknowledged that the Trump administration faces an uphill battle to convince any nation to abandon a climate-focused agenda.
“I think if the administration came in and was just plain and realistic, and just said, ‘Hey, look, you know this just isn’t going to happen. … We need a new strategy to address climate change,’ I think that would be more effective instead of just saying, ‘You just need to get rid of all this,’” he said.
The reality of the situation is that global energy markets are intrinsically intertwined.
Coleman pointed to the automotive industry as an example. The U.S. imports hundreds of thousands of vehicles from the EU each year.
“European countries have really ramped up their efficiency standards, of course, that affects the kind of cars we get in the United States,” he said. “Manufacturers can’t manufacture only for the U.S. market.”
CHRIS WRIGHT GIVES IEA ONE YEAR TO DITCH ‘NET ZERO’ CLIMATE AGENDA OR LOSE US
But as power demand grows and energy security moves into the fore with Europe moving to fully end its imports of Russian oil and gas, the bloc’s increased reliance on U.S. products may force some nations to compromise on their climate priorities.
“It’s going to be hard for Europe to pursue a policy that’s completely different from the U.S.,” Coleman said.
