On January 20, 2025, America witnessed another significant event: President Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C. The ceremony marked the beginning of his four-year term, echoing his well-known slogan “Make America Great Again.”
In a bold move, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. This decision initiated a major shift in the nation’s energy and climate policies. His “America First” energy strategy focuses on boosting fossil fuel production, rolling back regulations, and reducing government oversight. Supporters see this as a way to enhance energy independence and foster economic growth. However, critics warn it could lead to severe environmental damage and a loss of global leadership.
Exiting the Paris Agreement: A Signal to the World
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement. It signaled a huge setback for global efforts to combat climate change. This decision mirrors his 2017 move to pull the U.S. out of the same accord.
The Paris Agreement, formed in 2015, seeks to limit global temperature rise to 2.7°F (1.5°C) above pre-industrial levels. The fallback goal is to stay below 3.6°F (2°C). Countries set their emission reduction targets, which are expected to become more ambitious over time.
As reported by AP News, along with an executive order, Trump signed a letter to the United Nations, officially stating his intent to exit the agreement. The accord requires nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. In contrast, the Biden administration proposed reducing U.S. emissions by over 60% by 2035 as part of its climate strategy.
Trump’s decision further isolates the U.S. from key global allies. It raises concerns about the international community’s ability to tackle climate change without American leadership.
Biennial Transparency Report: Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions

According to the U.S. government’s most recent official projections, the full 2024 Policy Baseline sees the U.S. achieving net GHG emission reductions of:
Relative to 2005 levels
- 29 – 46% in 2030,
- 36 – 57% in 2035
- 34 – 64% in 2040
Trump Declares National Energy Emergency: Drilling and Deregulation
One of Trump’s most controversial moves was declaring an “energy emergency”. Trump said,
“The inflation crisis is caused by overspending and massive and escalating energy prices that is why I also declare a national energy emergency. America will be a manufacturing nation again and we will have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have, the largest amount of oil and gas that any country on earth has and we are going to use it,”.
The White House stated that the U.S. lacks enough energy supply and infrastructure to meet its needs. It stressed the importance of reliable, affordable energy for industries, defense, and everyday life. High energy prices, worsened by past policies, hurt low- and fixed-income families the most.
The statement warned that foreign adversaries exploit U.S. energy weaknesses, targeting infrastructure and manipulating global markets. Energy security is crucial for protecting Americans and stabilizing the economy. A strong domestic energy supply reduces reliance on foreign sources and ensures national security.
Notably, the Trump administration has promised to reduce energy prices as a measure to combat high inflation.
Unleashing Alaska’s Resource Potential
Alaska holds a special place in Trump’s energy strategy and broadly in American energy dominance. In Alaska, Trump issued an executive order to lift restrictions on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Beyond opening the ANWR to drilling, Trump’s policies focus on expanding resource extraction across the state, including mining and natural gas projects.
The administration argues that Alaska’s resources are vital for national security and economic growth. He also plans to fast-track permits for energy projects, claiming that lengthy bureaucratic processes hinder economic growth.
However, these actions face significant opposition. Environmental activists warn that increased drilling could accelerate climate change, particularly as the Arctic warms at twice the global average. Indigenous groups, too, are voicing concerns about the impact on their cultural heritage and traditional practices.
- MUST READ: Trump’s Tactic to Make America Great Again: Expanding Domestic Oil, Gas, and Critical Minerals
This stance could stall progress in the rapidly growing renewable energy sector. Over the past decade, wind and solar power have become more competitive, creating thousands of jobs. Industry leaders worry that removing federal support will slow innovation and weaken the United States’ position in the global clean energy race.
Meanwhile, states like California and New York have pledged to continue their investments in renewables. California, for example, has vowed to continue its aggressive climate policies, including a ban on gas-powered car sales by 2035.

Rolling Back EV Push and Emissions Rules
Electric vehicles (EVs) have been at the forefront of climate solutions. However, Trump plans to repeal federal tax credits for EVs and reverse energy efficiency mandates. These rollbacks aim to reduce government intervention in the auto industry and encourage consumer choice.
Reuters recently reported that the Biden administration’s goal of having 50% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. be electric by 2030 was non-binding but had gained support from automakers across the globe.
Critics argue that this approach favors gasoline-powered vehicles, delays the transition to cleaner transportation, and can potentially increase carbon emissions. Automakers, who have already invested heavily in EV production, face uncertainty about future regulations. Meanwhile, countries like China and Germany continue to dominate the EV market, leaving the U.S. at risk of falling behind.
Suzanna Massingue, a low-carbon transportation analyst at S&P Global explained that Trump has repeatedly criticized EVs, targeting the Biden-era EV tax credit and the shift toward electrification. Removing this tax credit would hurt the U.S. EV industry and delay cost parity with gas-powered cars.

The Paradox of America’s Progress Under Trump’s Rule
President Trump’s “America First” energy strategy represents a paradox in U.S. climate policy. On one side, it focuses on boosting economic growth, energy independence, and creating jobs through fossil fuel expansion. On the other side, critics warn that this approach could harm the environment and hurt the country’s global leadership in tackling climate change.
The Anti-Trump group believes that by prioritizing deregulation and fossil fuels, the administration is aiming for short-term economic benefits. Moreover, legal challenges already exist, with environmental groups preparing to fight in court. They argue that many of Trump’s policies violate laws that protect the environment and public health.
In conclusion, America’s energy future seems uncertain at this moment. Legal battles, market shifts, and state policies will all play an important role in determining America’s carbon footprint. Most significantly, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has sparked significant criticism. But how much America will truly benefit from this approach– only time will tell!
The post Trump’s “America First” Energy Agenda: The Critical Points You Must Know appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares
Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years 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 Change2 years 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 Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
