Trump's Climate Bluff: Who Really Turns Out To Be the "Fool" in the Game Against Nature?

In a recent speech at the UN General Assembly, D. Trump, known for his penchant for flashy and populist statements, launched sharp criticism against the "green" agenda. UN climate forecasts, the concept of the carbon footprint, and investments in alternative energy came under fire. He called the authors of climate change forecasts "fools" and all related warnings and policy proposals – the "greatest hoax." As usual, the American president's rhetoric often diverges from facts and reliable statistics.

Perhaps the most serious climate challenge of recent times is global warming. Monitoring temperature fluctuations is based on regular measurements from meteorological stations around the planet, and averaging the obtained values allows for the formation of warming trends in various countries. For instance, the Earth's surface temperature level, since 2010, has been at least 1°C higher annually compared to the average for 1951–1980 (Fig. 1). On a country level, the most significant climate shifts are observed in the Baltic states, Northern Europe, the CIS, and a number of other territorial associations. The United States, of course, has not been immune to the temperature rise trend.

Fig. 1. Change in surface temperature relative to the average temperature in 1951-1980, 3-year moving average, °C

Source: IMF Climate Change Dashboard climatedata.imf.org/datasets....

If global warming has a long-term impact on human existence, then natural disasters cause not only immediate damage (including economic) but also have long-term consequences. The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) accumulates information on such events. According to this Centre's approach, natural disasters are defined as situations or events that exceed the capabilities of local authorities and require appeals for external assistance at the national or international level. Six types of climate-related natural disasters are identified: drought, extreme temperature fluctuations, fires, floods, landslides, and storms. The United States consistently ranks high in the number of natural disasters per year, suffering particularly from hurricanes (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Number of natural disasters.

Source: The Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), www.emdat.be.

As for the "fool" authors of climate forecasts, there can indeed be many nuances concerning forecasting algorithms, scenario development procedures, etc. However, following D. Trump's logic, not only forecasters but also scientists who incorporate environmental and climatic factors into economic development models are among the "swindlers." And this list includes quite reputable names, including laureates of the Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

First and foremost, this includes W. Nordhaus, awarded the prize "for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis." He developed the DICE (Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy) model, which finds a balance between the costs of reducing emissions and the damage from warming through a carbon tax mechanism. This model was criticized by another laureate — J. Stiglitz, who noted that neoclassical models ignore behavioral biases, institutional inertia, and socio-cognitive traps. Hyperbolic discounting of future benefits leads to systematic underinvestment in adaptation. Although J. Stiglitz received the economics prize for research not directly related to environmental issues, as part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for a report in which he was a leading author.

Over time, it has been confirmed that price signals alone — taxes and subsidies — are insufficient to solve environmental problems. Consequently, the need arose for a deeper study of the structure of public institutions and decision-making mechanisms. E. Ostrom, another Nobel laureate, showed that the best resilience to climate shocks is demonstrated not by centralized systems, but by flexible governance networks that take local specifics into account. The key to their success is a high level of social trust, allowing communities to quickly pool resources and implement innovations for adaptation.

But why then, even with such successful models, does resistance to the transition to sustainable development persist? The institutional approach is not enough here, and behavioral economics enters the stage, introducing the factor of human irrationality into the equation. In this field, two Nobel laureates have integrated environmental themes into their research. D. Kahneman described the phenomenon of hyperbolic discounting, demonstrating that rational arguments and facts about environmental threats are often insufficient to change people's behavior. His ideas laid the foundation for behavioral economics and "nudges," which today, not least thanks to the huge contribution of R. Thaler, are used to develop more effective environmental policies, communication, and incentives for "green" behavior.

It is quite natural that news about the reduction (or even cessation) of funding by the D. Trump administration for research that includes the word "climate" in their title causes deep concern in scientific circles. Since the US president's loud statements against the environmental agenda are accompanied by significant measures, a number of adverse and long-term consequences could arise for his country and the entire world.

First, a "domino effect" appears — such rhetoric encourages skeptics and populists in other countries, which could lead to a general rollback of ambitious climate policy at the global level.

Second, because the climate system has inertia, delaying measures for several years means that in the future, achieving the same goals will require much more painful and expensive actions, and some changes may become irreversible.

Third, the refusal to take measures for climate change adaptation and mitigation will lead to hurricanes, fires, and floods occurring more frequently and causing greater physical and economic damage.

Ultimately, such statements are not just words. They lead to specific policies that undermine global security, hinder US economic development in promising sectors, exacerbate environmental disasters, and jeopardize the health and well-being of future generations. The paradox is that by trying to preserve jobs in traditional industries (especially in the fuel and energy sector), such policies hinder the creation of a much larger number of new jobs in the economy of the future.

It is fair to note that D. Trump's "anti-green" policy does not find broad support even among US allies, let alone rivals. For example, both the first (in 2017) and the second (in 2025) US withdrawals from the Paris Agreement were met with both regret and outright criticism from representatives of many developed countries, including the leaders of Canada, the UK, Japan, and others.