The Right-Wings Role in Climate Policy and Rollbacks: An increasing geopolitical and economic risk
18/03/2025 - Written by Ayusha Pandey
Introduction: The Political Shift Against Climate Action
In the past decade, climate change policy has increasingly become a battleground between progressive and right-wing governments. While scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports urgent action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, right-wing populist movements have frequently framed climate regulations as economic burdens, threats to national sovereignty, or tools of globalist control. This skepticism has translated into aggressive rollbacks of environmental policies, weakening global climate agreements, and delaying necessary transitions toward clean energy.
The resurgence of right-wing governments, from Donald Trump’s second presidency in the U.S., Jair Bolsonaro’s tenure in Brazil (2019-2022), and Scott Morrison’s administration in Australia (2018-2022), has severely impacted global climate progress. Trump’s second withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, Bolsonaro’s dismantling of Amazon rainforest protections, and Morrison’s expansion of coal and gas projects demonstrate a broader ideological shift where economic growth is prioritised over environmental sustainability, often at irreversible costs to climate stability.
This trend is not just a temporary political phase; the long-term consequences of climate policy reversals are far more damaging than commonly acknowledged. Even after leadership transitions, the environmental, economic, and diplomatic fallout of these policies remains, creating instability in global climate governance, trade relations, and economic resilience.
This article provides a comparative study of how right-wing governments in the United States, Brazil, and Australia have systematically dismantled climate initiatives and the long-term consequences of these actions. It highlights how even after progressive leadership returns, the structural damage caused by these reversals creates lasting uncertainty, making global climate policy fragile and inconsistent.
Context: Right-Wing Populism and Climate Hostility
There is increasing evidence suggesting that right-wing populist parties and governments are hostile toward low-carbon policies. Studies have found that these governments have statistically significant negative effects on climate policy, often due to their alignment with fossil fuel interests, scepticism toward climate science, and opposition to multilateral institutions. The recent rise in right-wing governance suggests a long-term shift in climate policy for major nations, influencing global approaches toward emissions reduction, energy transitions, and international cooperation.
The Republican Party in the U.S., particularly under Trump, has exemplified right-wing populism by promoting climate scepticism, deregulation, and withdrawal from international commitments. The U.S.'s recent withdrawal from the International Partners Group (IPG)—a bloc of wealthy nations funding energy transitions in South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Senegal—exemplifies how right-wing climate policies directly impact global efforts to mitigate climate change. The loss of critical financial and technical assistance forces developing nations to either delay clean energy projects or revert to high-emission alternatives.
By analysing three case studies—the United States, Brazil, and Australia—this report demonstrates how right-wing governments roll back climate progress, the economic and geopolitical consequences of these reversals, and how difficult it is to restore stability even after leadership changes.
The Pattern of Right-Wing Climate Rollbacks
United States of America: Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and Deregulation
The re-election of Trump as the American President in 2024, as mentioned previously, has long term negative impacts. One of his first executive orders was to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement for the second time, a move that signaled his administration’s commitment to climate policy deregulation.
The Paris Climate Agreement, first adopted in 2015 by nearly 200 countries, aims to limit global warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with a further goal of keeping it below 1.5°C. The agreement requires nations to set their own emissions reduction targets (Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs) and update them every five years. Developed nations also commit to providing financial aid to developing countries to help them adapt to climate change and transition to clean energy.
Trump’s first withdrawal from the agreement was announced in June 2017, citing economic disadvantages and unfair treatment of the U.S. in comparison to countries like China and India. However, due to procedural rules, the withdrawal only took effect in November 2020, just one day after the U.S. presidential election. Shortly after taking office in January 2021, President Joe Biden rejoined the agreement, restoring the U.S.’s commitment to climate action and pledging to cut emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030.
Following Trump’s 2024 re-election, he once again withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on January 20, 2025, declaring that the agreement undermined American energy independence and economic growth. This second withdrawal had even more severe consequences than the first, as it further weakened global trust in U.S. climate commitments and emboldened other nations to reconsider their obligations.
Environmental Deregulation and Fossil Fuel Expansion
Scaling Back Regulations on Fossil Fuels: Trump’s administration rescinded Biden-era restrictions on coal, oil, and gas projects, allowing for increased extraction and production on public lands. Protections that had previously blocked drilling in sensitive areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore regions in the Gulf of Mexico, were lifted.
Weakened Emissions Standards: The Trump administration rolled back vehicle emissions regulations, reversing Biden’s fuel efficiency standards that were designed to push the automotive industry towards electric vehicles.
Deregulation of Power Plants: Trump removed restrictions on coal-fired power plants, allowing for increased emissions from one of the most polluting energy sources.
U.S. contributions to international climate finance initiatives, which play a critical role in supporting developing nations in their climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. Key agreements impacted included:
The Green Climate Fund (GCF): Established in 2010 under the UNFCCC framework, the GCF is the largest multilateral fund dedicated to climate finance, aiming to help developing nations adapt to climate change, transition to clean energy, and strengthen climate resilience. The U.S. had previously pledged $3 billion, but Trump halted payments in 2017, and his second withdrawal in 2025 completely severed U.S. financial support.
The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs): These agreements, spearheaded by the U.S. and European allies, were designed to help developing countries move away from coal and develop renewable energy alternatives. Trump’s withdrawal meant a loss of over $1 billion in funding, derailing energy transition plans in these nations.
Loss of Climate Diplomacy Leadership: By pulling out of climate finance commitments, the U.S. weakened its ability to influence global environmental policy, creating a vacuum that countries like China are now filling by increasing their investments in renewable energy projects worldwide.
Trump’s actions not only undermined global emissions reduction targets but also created policy uncertainty that weakened international climate cooperation. The ripple effect of these decisions led to a downturn in global climate ambitions, as nations dependent on U.S. leadership and financial support reconsidered their own commitments.
Brazil: The Bolsonaro Legacy and Lula’s Struggle to Reverse Damage
Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency (2019–2022) saw record-breaking deforestation rates in the Amazon rainforest, driven by weakened environmental enforcement, illegal logging, and agribusiness expansion. Bolsonaro’s administration cut funding to IBAMA (Brazil’s environmental enforcement agency) and reduced penalties for environmental violations, leading to a surge in deforestation, fires, and land seizures by corporations and illegal loggers.
Under Bolsonaro, Brazil also withdrew from its commitments under the Amazon Fund, a global initiative funded by Norway and Germany to combat deforestation. With international pressure mounting, Brazil became an environmental outlier, straining diplomatic relations with the European Union and threatening trade agreements such as the EU-Mercosur deal, which requires strong environmental commitments.
When President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) took office in 2023, he promised to reverse the environmental damage caused under Bolsonaro. However, his administration has faced numerous obstacles:
Rebuilding Institutional Capacity: Years of budget cuts and job losses in environmental agencies made it difficult to ramp up enforcement efforts against illegal deforestation.
Pushback from Agribusiness and Right-Wing Politicians: Despite Lula’s pledges, powerful agribusiness interests, backed by Bolsonaro-aligned lawmakers, continue to resist tougher environmental regulations.
Slow Progress on Reforestation: While Lula reinstated funding for environmental protection, restoring lost forest areas is a long-term challenge requiring decades of sustained effort.
Tensions with International Partners: While Lula has attempted to mend relations with global climate allies, investors remain wary about Brazil’s long-term environmental policies, given the precedent set under Bolsonaro.
In 2023, deforestation rates began to decline modestly, but experts caution that without consistent enforcement and strong legal frameworks, deforestation could easily spike again if another right-wing government takes power in the future.
Australia: Morrison’s Coal Commitment and Policy Stagnation
Scott Morrison’s government (2018–2022) was greatly condemned internationally for its reluctance to take strong climate action, despite Australia being among the most climate-vulnerable countries. Morrison’s government:
Expanded coal and gas projects despite mounting global pressure to transition to renewables. Morrison’s government championed Australia’s fossil fuel industry, approving major coal mines, such as the Carmichael coal mine, operated by Adani, despite fierce opposition from environmental groups and international partners. His administration argued that coal exports were vital to Australia’s economy, particularly as China and India remained key buyers. Additionally, natural gas extraction projects, including those in the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo Basin, were heavily promoted, ensuring continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Delayed net-zero commitments, weakening Australia’s stance in international climate negotiations. While most developed nations committed to net-zero targets by 2050 or earlier, Morrison’s administration resisted such pledges, citing economic risks and energy security concerns. His government only formally committed to net-zero emissions in late 2021 under international pressure but failed to outline a concrete transition plan. Unlike other nations that set interim goals for 2030 and 2040, Australia under Morrison focused on vague commitments without strong enforcement mechanisms, undermining credibility in global climate discussions.
Resisted climate regulation, making it difficult for subsequent governments to implement meaningful reforms. Morrison’s administration weakened Australia’s environmental protection laws, reducing regulatory oversight for industrial projects and rejecting calls to strengthen emissions reduction policies. His government also resisted efforts to phase out coal-fired power plants, keeping aging plants operational despite their inefficiency and high emissions output. Even after Morrison left office, many of these deregulatory policies remained embedded in Australia’s political landscape, making it harder for subsequent governments to take decisive climate action.
Even under a Labor-led government post-2022, Australia struggles to shake off its dependency on fossil fuel exports. While the Labor government has pledged net-zero emissions by 2050, it has continued approving new coal and gas projects, highlighting the tension between economic interests and climate commitments. The country remains a major exporter of coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG), with mining lobbies exerting strong political influence.
Additionally, Australia’s bushfire and extreme weather crises have intensified, leading to higher economic losses and insurance costs. The devastating 2019-2020 Black Summer bushfires, which burned over 18 million hectares of land and killed or displaced an estimated 3 billion animals, demonstrated the country’s increasing vulnerability to climate disasters. Despite this, Morrison’s government downplayed the connection between climate change and bushfires, insisting on short-term response measures rather than proactive climate adaptation policies. The country faces mounting pressure from international trade partners, particularly the European Union, which has threatened carbon tariffs on Australian exports unless stronger climate action is taken.
Conclusion: The Need for Policy Stability in Climate Governance
The cyclical nature of climate policy rollbacks under right-wing governments poses a far greater risk than short-term environmental damage. The U.S.’s second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, Brazil’s prolonged struggle to reverse Amazon deforestation, and Australia’s continued reliance on fossil fuel exports all illustrate a key issue: even when climate-conscious leaders return to power, the long-term damage caused by previous rollbacks makes policy recovery slow, complex, and, in some cases, nearly impossible.
When progressive governments take office, they do not inherit a neutral policy landscape—they inherit damaged institutions, defunded environmental agencies, and emboldened fossil fuel lobbies that make implementing climate action far more difficult than before.
The future of climate action depends on structural reforms that insulate policy from political fluctuations, ensuring that environmental commitments remain steadfast regardless of leadership changes. Without such measures, the world remains trapped in a cycle of environmental neglect and reactive governance, increasing long-term risks for economies and societies. The global community must acknowledge that climate action cannot be a partisan issue—it must be a foundational principle of governance.