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%).
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.
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
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change1 month ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Renewable Energy2 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale