In Pakistan, on April 10th, President Donald Trump announced a significant shift in U.S. policies aimed at reinforcing national power. He signed an executive order intended to unlock extensive domestic coal and oil resources once again. Using passionate language infused with populism, he initiated a renewed push using phrases such as “Drill, Baby, Drill” and praising what he calls “clean beautiful coal.” This move was designed to uplift coal-dependent regions but simultaneously signaled defiance towards climate experts, renewable energy supporters, and worldwide ecological alliances—the United States appears ready to prioritize profits and politics above planetary health.
Trump’s declaration represents a complete withdrawal from previous engagements set forth by the Paris Climate Accord along with other multinational environmental accords including those discussed during COP meetings. By reinstating coal extraction activities and hastening approvals for new oil exploration projects, he directly undermines progress achieved environmentally within recent years. Although he claims these steps will generate employment opportunities and stimulate economic growth, they might not provide sustainable benefits; instead, this focus could lead to severe adverse effects down the line due to increased reliance on nonrenewable sources of energy.
No matter how “beautiful” or technologically advanced, coal continues to be one of the most polluting energy sources on our planet. The concept of “clean coal” is mostly an illusion; current carbon capture methods are costly, have restricted capacity for expansion, and cannot entirely mitigate the ecological harm resulting from both extracting and combusting coal. As stated by the World Health Organization, airborne pollutants from fossil fuels lead to over seven million early fatalities each year, with coal playing a significant role in this issue. Additionally, coal-powered facilities contribute to more than forty percent of worldwide CO2 emissions.
Trump framed his energy pivot as a necessity in the age of artificial intelligence and rising power demands. He claimed solar and wind cannot keep up, and thus, coal and nuclear must take center stage. This argument ignores the rapid advancements in battery storage, smart grids, and the plunging costs of renewable infrastructure. The International Energy (IEA) projects that by 2030, renewables will make up nearly 50% of global electricity generation-far outpacing coal. In the U.S., the solar and wind energy workforce already surpasses that of the coal sector, offering safer and more sustainable employment.
Revitalizing the coal industry under the pretense of national security and energy independence is not just deceptive—it’s reckless. This approach overlooks the genuine threats posed by rapid climate change, such as increasing sea levels and severe weather phenomena. Trump’s casual remark that seas might rise “only a quarter of an inch in 500 years” is both factually incorrect and alarmingly nonchalant when confronted with worldwide ecological crises. According to reports from NASA and NOAA, global sea levels have surged more than three inches since 1993.
During his address, Trump portrayed coal workers against “radical environmentalists,” depicting those who advocate for climate action as out-of-touch elites detached from blue-collar Americans. Although it’s accurate that shifts towards renewable energy haven’t always been fair, addressing this requires well-organized reskilling initiatives, funding for eco-friendly employment opportunities, and assistance during the transition—rather than persisting with obsolete and harmful sectors.
Celebrating coal mining as part of cultural heritage overlooks the severe impact it has on both workers and nearby populations. Issues like pneumoconiosis and polluted water highlight that the health consequences associated with coal use significantly surpass its financial advantages. On the contrary, employment opportunities in renewable sectors such as solar and wind power are notably less hazardous and have been expanding at almost double the pace of positions within the traditional fossil fuel industry, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows.
Beyond coal and oil, Trump is advocating for quicker approval processes for nuclear plants. Although nuclear power generates minimal carbon emissions, it carries significant hazards such as managing radioactive waste, addressing security issues, and dealing with extremely high construction expenses. By threatening to utilize the Defense Production Act to hasten energy initiatives—including nuclear developments—he demonstrates his readiness to bypass established safety regulations in favor of rapid implementation and dramatic effects.
Trump has contended that wind and solar power are inconsistent, citing instances of blackouts in places such as California. However, these outages frequently result from obsolete grid systems and inadequate preparation rather than issues inherent to renewable technologies. Rather than reverting to coal based on this argument, resources ought to be directed towards upgrading the electrical network and effectively incorporating renewable sources through advanced storage methods.
The president’s claim about tapping into America’s previously untouched oil deposits—which were kept intact as a key long-term resource—shows a lack of foresight in leadership. These reserves were safeguarded to ensure energy stability during worldwide unrest. Exploiting them currently to control market prices or briefly reduce fuel costs is similar to liquidating precious family possessions to cover a single month’s expenses.
Trump’s reasoning hinges on the idea that America’s resources ought to be utilized for enhancing American well-being. However, this approach erodes the international collaborative ethos needed to address climate issues. Given its status as one of the biggest contributors to pollution, the U.S. holds an ethical duty to spearhead efforts towards reducing carbon emissions rather than instigating a worldwide shift back toward coal and oil.
In both my trips to China in 2013 and during my extended stay from 2020 to 2024, I witnessed the remarkable speed at which China has embraced reducing its dependency on coal and fossil fuels. Known previously for significant environmental damage, China has emerged as a world leader in investing in clean energy. Between 2010 and 2023, they invested more than $890 billion in renewables. As reported by the IEA, China was responsible for almost half of all new renewable power installations globally in 2023. The nation is swiftly expanding its capacities in solar, wind, hydropower, and nuclear energy, aiming to reach peak emissions prior to 2030 and attain net-zero emissions by 2060. In stark opposition to the backward steps taken under Trump’s administration, China’s shift towards cleaner energies aims not just to fulfill international climate pledges but also to improve air quality, lessen reliance on foreign fuel imports, and generate numerous environmentally friendly job opportunities. This comparison highlights how the U.S. might fall short in leading the charge toward a sustainable future.
Trump’s executive orders-ending federal discrimination against coal, protecting existing coal plants, securing the power grid, and challenging state-level environmental laws-are calculated to make his energy policies “stick” beyond his tenure. But these orders also risk binding future administrations to a regressive path that ignores science, global consensus, and the demands of a younger, climate-conscious electorate.
Today, the applause from coal miners might transform into demands for environmental justice tomorrow. The United States possesses the means, labor force, and technological capabilities to spearhead the clean energy movement. Abandoning this potential would be more than poor policymaking—it would be a disregard for those yet to come.
The individual previously served as a press secretary to the president, held the position of press minister at the Pakistani Embassy in France, and was formerly the managing director of SRBC.
