Connect with us

Published

on

US president Donald Trump’s tariffs might only shave 0.3% off global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions this year, according to Carbon Brief analysis.

While the Trump administration is setting back international climate action through policies such as the “one big beautiful bill”, some analysts have argued that his tariffs would inadvertently cut carbon by throwing sand into the engine of the global economy.

However, Carbon Brief’s analysis, based on changing projections of economic growth since the tariffs were announced, shows that this effect is likely to be very limited.

The slew of new tariffs – initially announced on 2 April, dubbed by the president as “liberation day” – might only knock 110-150m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) off global emissions in 2025 (0.3-0.4%), the analysis shows.

For 2026, the tariffs could have a slightly higher impact, but still only 190-300MtCO2 (0.5-0.8%).

Line chart showing historical CO2 emissions titled: Trump's tariffs might only decrease emissions by 0.3% this year
Annual global emissions from fossil fuels and cement, bntCO2, including estimates for 2025 and 2026 based on IMF GDP growth forecasts both before and after Trump announced his tariffs. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of IMF, World Bank and Global Carbon Budget data.

Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs included a 10% universal levy on all imported goods, alongside additional “reciprocal tariffs” on a number of countries he claimed had “cheated” the US.

The announcement sent the world’s stock markets into “turmoil”. The move has hit a range of diverse industries, including steel and aluminium, oil and more.

Despite initially saying he had no plans to pause the tariffs, Trump announced on 10 April that he would pause them for 90 days.

This pause was set to come to an end on 9 July, but, just days before this, he announced a further extension to 1 August. On his social-media network, Truth Social, Trump said countries would receive “letters and/or deals” on tariffs in the interim.

More recently, he has signed tariff deals with the European Union and countries such as the UK, Japan, the Philippines and others.

These deals reduce the headline tariff rates relative to the “liberation day” situation, as well as typically including a range of carve-outs and exemptions.

However, they do not end uncertainty over tariff levels and still leave US import levies at their highest levels “since the 1930s”, reducing expectations for trade and growth.

Since returning to office at the beginning of 2025, Trump – a climate sceptic – has rolled back a large number of environmental policies and protections.

Most recently, his “one big beautiful bill” was passed on 4 July, bringing an end to a number of former president Joe Biden’s policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which provided support for electric vehicles, clean-technology manufacturing and more.

In combination with other Trump administration policies, this means the US will breach its now-defunct emissions reduction for 2030 target by a cumulative total of 7bn tonnes of CO2, previous Carbon Brief analysis found.

Nevertheless, numerous people suggested that the economic damage from Trump’s tariffs could “unintentionally” lead to a drop in carbon emissions.

For example, an April 2025 article in the New York Times stated: “Trump’s economic approach may inadvertently reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as consumption slows in response to a global trade war.”

The piece noted that the “reprieve for the planet” was likely to be short-lived, with longer-term impacts potentially hitting clean-energy deployment as international supply chains are hampered.

Similarly, an April 2025 Associated Press article quoted Global Carbon Project head Prof Rob Jackson saying that tariffs “might help the climate in the first year or two”. However, it quoted him continuing that this would come at a high cost and might backfire:

“I would say it might help the climate in the first year or two if we have a downturn in economic activity or a recession, which no one wants. But it will hurt the climate long-term because tariffs impact clean tech more than most other industries because of trade with China.”

Carbon Brief’s analysis shows that the emissions impact, even in the short term, is expected to be minimal.

It assessed the expected emissions impact of reduced global GDP by looking at changes to GDP forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank, before and after Trump’s tariffs announcements.

The OECD suggests the biggest impact from the tariffs, as shown in the chart below.

Bar chart: Estimated growth impacts from Trump's tariffs are similar across organisations
Estimated change in global emissions as a result of tariffs, MtCO2, based on GDP growth forecasts from the IMF, OECD and World Bank. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of figures from the IMF, OECD, World Bank and Global Carbon Project.

The medium- to long-term impact of Trump’s trade wars is expected to be negative for climate action. In a recent interview, UK climate envoy Rachel Kyte told Carbon Brief that it created uncertainty and was likely to slow down clean-energy investment. She said:

“Investment flows when everybody feels confident, right?…[I]f I don’t know if the tariff is 10%, 20%, 25%, 56%, whatever, well, let me put it off till the next quarter to make that investment decision.”

Kyte added: “It’s the hesitancy that it puts in the mind of government, but also in the mind of investors and the private sector…[T]he sort of tariff era we’re in, the risk is that it slows down the investment in the clean-energy transition at a time when it needs to speed up.”

Methodology

Carbon Brief estimated the impact of Trump’s tariffs on global GDP by comparing growth forecasts published during June and July 2025 by the IMF World Economic Outlook, OECD Economic Outlook and World Bank Global Economic Prospects against corresponding forecasts published in December 2024 or January 2025, before Trump’s tariff announcements.

While Trump’s tariffs are not the only factor to have changed in these forecasts over the time period in question, they do represent a singular and sudden effect, which would be expected to have a significant impact on the global economic outlook.

The analysis estimates global GDP over 2025/2026 by applying the growth forecasts to historical GDP from the World Bank.

The reductions in forecast global GDP growth are translated into estimated emissions impacts by assuming that the “carbon intensity” of the world’s economy continues to improve at a steady rate, with or without the tariffs. Carbon intensity is the emissions per unit of GDP and has been improving slowly and steadily over many years.

The analysis only considers CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and cement production. Historical CO2 emissions data is taken from the Global Carbon Budget.

The range of estimated CO2 impacts stems from the varying GDP forecasts of the three different organisations.

For comparison, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has revised down its forecasts for global oil demand growth in 2025 by some 350,000 barrels of oil per day since the start of the year. This is equivalent to cutting global emissions this year by 40MtCO2.

The IEA’s forecasts for global coal demand in 2025 are broadly unchanged since the start of the year, with demand expected to grow 0.2% this year.

The post Analysis: Trump’s tariffs could cut just 0.3% from global CO2 emissions in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Analysis: Trump’s tariffs could cut just 0.3% from global CO2 emissions in 2025

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Corpus Christi Cuts Timeline to Disaster as Abbott Issues Emergency Orders

Published

on

The governor’s office said the city’s two main reservoirs could dry up by May, much sooner than previous timelines. But authorities still offer no plan for curtailment of water use.

City officials in Corpus Christi on Tuesday released modeling that showed emergency cuts to water demand could be required as soon as May as reservoir levels continue to decline.

Corpus Christi Cuts Timeline to Disaster as Abbott Issues Emergency Orders

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems

Published

on

Lena Luig is the head of the International Agricultural Policy Division at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a member of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food. Anna Lappé is the Executive Director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.

As toxic clouds loom over Tehran and Beirut from the US and Israel’s bombardment of oil depots and civilian infrastructure in the region’s ongoing war, the world is once again witnessing the not-so-subtle connections between conflict, hunger, food insecurity and the vulnerability of global food systems dependent on fossil fuels, dominated by a few powerful countries and corporations.

The conflict in Iran is having a huge impact on the world’s fertilizer supply. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical trade route in the region for nearly half of the global supply of urea, the main synthetic fertilizer derived from natural gas through the conversion of ammonia.

With the Strait impacted by Iran’s blockades, prices of urea have shot up by 35% since the war started, just as planting season starts in many parts of the world, putting millions of farmers and consumers at risk of increasing production costs and food price spikes, resulting in food insecurity, particularly for low-income households. The World Food Programme has projected that an extra 45 million people would be pushed ​into acute hunger because of rises in food, oil and shipping costs, if the war continues until June.

Pesticides and synthetic fertilizer leave system fragile

On the face of it, this looks like a supply chain issue, but at the core of this crisis lies a truth about many of our food systems around the world: the instability and injustice in the very design of systems so reliant on these fossil fuel inputs for our food.

At the Global Alliance, a strategic alliance of philanthropic foundations working to transform food systems, we have been documenting the fossil fuel-food nexus, raising alarm about the fragility of a system propped up by fossil fuels, with 15% of annual fossil fuel use going into food systems, in part because of high-cost, fossil fuel-based inputs like pesticides and synthetic fertilizer. The Heinrich Böll Foundation has also been flagging this threat consistently, most recently in the Pesticide Atlas and Soil Atlas compendia. 

We’ve seen this before: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 sparked global disruptions in fertilizer supply and food price volatility. As the conflict worsened, fertilizer prices spiked – as much from input companies capitalizing on the crisis for speculation as from real cost increases from production and transport – triggering a food price crisis around the world.

    Since then, fertilizer industry profit margins have continued to soar. In 2022, the largest nine fertilizer producers increased their profit margins by more than 35% compared to the year before—when fertilizer prices were already high. As Lena Bassermann and Dr. Gideon Tups underscore in the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Soil Atlas, the global dependencies of nitrogen fertilizer impacted economies around the world, especially state budgets in already indebted and import-dependent economies, as well as farmers across Africa.

    Learning lessons from the war in Ukraine, many countries invested heavily in renewable energy and/or increased domestic oil production as a way to decrease dependency on foreign fossil fuels. But few took the same approach to reimagining domestic food systems and their food sovereignty.

    Agroecology as an alternative

    There is another way. Governments can adopt policy frameworks to encourage reductions in synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use, especially in regions that currently massively overuse nitrogen fertilizer. At the African Union fertilizer and Soil Health Summit in 2024, African leaders at least agreed that organic fertilizers should be subsidized as well, not only mineral fertilizers, but we can go farther in actively promoting agricultural pathways that reduce fossil fuel dependency. 

    In 2024, the Global Alliance organized dozens of philanthropies to call for a tenfold increase in investments to help farmers transition from fossil fuel dependency towards agroecological approaches that prioritize livelihoods, health, climate, and biodiversity.

    In our research, we detail the huge opportunity to repurpose harmful subsidies currently supporting inputs like synthetic fertilizer and pesticides towards locally-sourced bio-inputs and biofertilizer production. We know this works: There are powerful stories of hope and change from those who have made this transition, despite only receiving a fraction of the financing that industrial agriculture receives, with evidence of benefits from stable incomes and livelihoods to better health and climate outcomes.

    New summit in Colombia seeks to revive stalled UN talks on fossil fuel transition

    Inspiring examples abound: G-BIACK in Kenya is training farmers how to produce their own high-quality compost; start-ups like the Evola Company in Cambodia are producing both nutrient-rich organic fertilizer and protein-rich animal feed with black soldier fly farming; Sabon Sake in Ghana is enriching sugarcane bagasse – usually organic waste – with microbial agents and earthworms to turn it into a rich vermicompost.

    These efforts, grounded in ecosystems and tapping nature for soil fertility and to manage pest pressures, are just some of the countless examples around the world, tapping the skill and knowledge of millions of farmers. On a national and global policy level, the Agroecology Coalition, with 480+ members, including governments, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and philanthropic foundations, is supporting a transition toward agroecology, working with natural systems to produce abundant food, boost biodiversity, and foster community well-being.

    Fertilizer industry spins “clean” products

    We must also inoculate ourselves from the fertilizer industry’s public relations spin, which includes promoting the promise that their products can be produced without heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Despite experts debunking the viability of what the industry has dubbed “green hydrogen” or “green or clean ammonia”, the sector still promotes this narrative, arguing that these are produced with resource-intensive renewable energy or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a costly and unreliable technology for reducing emissions.

    As we mourn this conflict’s senseless destruction and death, including hundreds of children, we also recognize that peace cannot mean a return to business-as-usual. We need to upend the systems that allow the richest and most powerful to have dominion over so much.

    This includes fighting for a food system that is based on genuine sovereignty and justice, free from dependency on fossil fuels, one that honors natural systems and puts power into the hands of communities and food producers themselves.

    The post Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems appeared first on Climate Home News.

    Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Are There Climate Fingerprints in Tornado Activity?

    Published

    on

    Parts of the Southern and Northeastern U.S. faced tornado threats this week. Scientists are trying to parse out the climate links in changing tornado activity.

    It’s been a weird few weeks for weather across the United States.

    Are There Climate Fingerprints in Tornado Activity?

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com