President Donald. J. Trump’s seismic shift in energy policy will be felt far beyond U.S. borders. His withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, expanding American oil and gas exports, terminating the Green New Deal and eliminating the prospect of carbon tariffs offers a lifeline to developing nations grappling with chronic energy poverty.
When the United States pivots sharply, other nations reassess their positions. Nowhere will a change in the dynamics of energy policy be more welcome than in developing nations whose imperative to increase access to energy conflicts with pressures to submit to Western climate lords’ anti-growth, anti-humanistic, and dystopian Paris climate agreement.
Many developing nations have long expressed frustration with the climate agenda’s constraints on their economic growth. India and China, for instance, have consistently maintained that they need flexibility to determine their own domestic energy mix, emphasizing that access toaffordable fossil fuels is crucial for lifting millions out of poverty.
Similarly, nations across Africa have argued that their development priorities must include utilizing their natural resources – including coal, oil and natural gas – to meet people’s basic needs.
Take Nigeria, for example. With its significant natural gas reserves, the country has been caught between international pressure to limit the use of hydrocarbons and the urgent need to provide electricity to its growing population. International financial markets friendlier to fossil fuels could accelerate Nigeria’s plans to monetize its natural gas resources and expand domestic power generation.
As Yemi Osinbajo, a former Nigerian vice president, said, “Africans need more than just lights at home. We want abundant energy at scale so as to create industrial and commercial jobs. To participate fully in the global economy, we will need reliable, low-cost power.”
Global Implications of U.S. Energy Expansion
One of the most notable effects of Trump’s energy policy is an anticipated surge in exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S., which is to resume processing permit applications for new LNG projects interrupted by former President Biden.
For developing countries, this means reliable energy at competitive prices – a stark contrast to the intermittent power of solar and wind projects that have been favored by climate-compliant financial institutions.
Energy poverty remains a crippling obstacle in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America. According to the InternationalEnergy Agency (IEA), nearly 800 million people worldwide are without electricity, while 3 billion rely on smoky biomass for cooking.
By moving to increase the global supply of LNG, Trump offers an avenue for these nations to transition toward cleaner-burning natural gas. Benefits will include less deforestation, less indoor air pollution and a chance for more economic growth.
India has already invested in LNG terminals in the U.S. and will be increasing imports as demand grows from its population of 1.4 billion.
Moreover, an increased supply of LNG will stabilize global reserves and reduce the vulnerability of energy-importing nations to geopolitical disruptions. Energy abundance is a prerequisite for stability and prosperity – a reality that developing countries know all too well and the climate obsessed seemingly undervalue.
No Carbon Tariffs: A Boon for Developing Economies
While many pundits harp on Trump’s proposed tariffs on imports, they don’t recognize – or at least fail to acknowledge – that many in the developing world are likely to be happy that carbon tariffs of the climate agenda won’t be part of Trump’s tax regime.
Carbon tariffs, a darling of the climate crowd on both sides of the Atlantic, are designed to penalize the producers – and users – of carbon-intensive goods. In practice, however, they act as a regressive tax on developing nations, many of which lack the financial and technological means to “decarbonize” their industries.
For countries like India, which Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar has argued must prioritize economic growth over rigid climate targets, the carbon tax-free future represents a much-needed reprieve. It levels the playing field, allowing developing economies to compete in global markets without bearing the disproportionate burden of forced emissions reductions. Yes, Trump has threatened other tariffs, but those can be resolved through diplomacy.
Fossil fuels still account for over 80% of the world’s primary energy consumption, with countries like China, India and Indonesia expanding their infrastructures to produce, import and use hydrocarbons despite pledges to meet impossible climate goals.
With Trump’s bold move, these nations will no longer feel the need to hide behind the veneer of climate appeasement.
Trump’s rejection of climate orthodoxy matches the aspirations of developing nations striving to ensure energy security and overcome poverty. Expect these countries to be emboldened to more openly pursue their preferred energy strategies and leave the Paris agreement themselves.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K., a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
seismic shift in energy policy will be felt far beyond U.S. borders.
It won’t get as far as Wicker Man country…
“As the UK prepares its next carbon budget, what needs to be included?
…
With the UK well off track to meet its current carbon budgets, more action will be needed in the short and longer term, in every sector of the economy, involving changes to nearly every aspect of our lives from how we live at home to how we get around, what we work on and what we eat
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/21/as-the-uk-prepares-its-next-carbon-budget-what-needs-to-be-included
Same old, same old.
But our dear leader has told us we won’t need to change our ways”. Surely TTK is not lying!
As a lawyer it his sworn duty to act for his client’s best interests…
Maitlis: So, let’s just ask you quickly. You have to choose between Davos and Westminster.
Starmer: (Without hesitation) Davos.
Maitlis: Why?
Starmer: Because Westminster is too constrained, it’s closed, and we’re not having meaning . . . you actually engage with people who you can see working with in the future . . .
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/starmer-in-with-the-davos-in-crowd/
nuff said.
Contrast that with President who will engage with anybody at anytime. Closed minds lead to energy poverty and industrial failure.
I’ll take The Guardian journos seriously the day they themselves do without the benefits of Oil and Gas and light their offices with candles.
Developing countries only signed up to the Paris agreement because they were promised free money. They have no intention whatsoever of crippling their economies by following the lunatic advice of climate alarmists.
Have you seen the Maldives lately? What happens when your islands are sinking beneath inexorable sea level rise?
“Maldives’ First Superyacht Marina”
https://www.superyachts.com/news/story/zamani-islands-home-to-the-maldives-first-superyacht-marina-17303/
How were developments like these financed? And what happened to that sea level rise?
Note that ‘traditional biomass’ makes three times the global energy than all the windmills and panels in the world. Dung and local forests. Disgraceful
Well I say not one ounce of LNG for them unless and until they quit the “Paris Agreement”. No more lies.
No, trade with anybody. Their purchase of U.S. LNG proves they don’t give a shit about that toothless agreement.
Trump is going to lead the world out of the Climate Change Wilderness.
Climate Alarmists are on the Defense today because of all their numerous failed scary climate change predictions, and now, along comes Trump, to ridicule the concept and starve it into oblivion.
“Trump is going to lead the world out of the Climate Change Wilderness.”
I sincerely hope you are right about that, Tom. It’s only a month into the new administration, yet even before the election one could not help but notice that Trump had only to speak and things started to happen as a result of his utterances.
I’d say the two eco loonies to watch are Germany and the UK
Trump is giving a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at this moment, and is singing the praises of the UK Reform Party and Nigel Farage.
Nigel’s name got a big, positive response from the audience.
Watch them as their “leaders” drive them into much lower standards of living.
Just saw a Boston weather man say February so far has been several degrees below “normal”. Of course I hate the use of the word “normal” by weathermen- it’s just dumb, but nonetheless, it’s been dam cold and with lots of snow.
“February so far has been several degrees below “normal”. “
Are you blind, Joseph? This is proof positive that John Holdren’s pseudo-scientific assertion that global warming causes cold is valid.
A local weatherperson here mentioned that it was almost 40F below normal a couple days last week. There was no mention of global warming or climate change.
Weather folks should always capitalize “Normal”, as in Climate Normals. It is a definition. You can look it up.
In tennis, the word Love means something different than it does in a Rock ‘n Roll song.
Likewise, Climate Normals are abstractions that need context.
Your Boston weather man should say average.
All this discussion is unnecessary if people would only understand that “de-carbonisation” achieves nothing to save the planet. Carbon dioxide is a good gas, essential to life. It is only a trace gas in the atmosphere compared to the infinitely more prolific green house gas clouds and water vapour. Net Zero Policies achieve nothing but hardship. Wake up everybody. Those climate fearmongers amongst the world’s power elites are in it only for themselves.
Cheap, reliable energy likely won’t change things very much for many of these countries. What needs to change is culture. Most are deeply rooted in superstition, often resulting in terrible tragedies. And the leaders are almost always Kleptocrats, being the only inhabitants of their country living in luxury.
Dear Mr Jeff Alberts,
Please reconsider your absurd prognostication — What a mindless pile of slander! Show us these places you know about where ‘cheap, reliable energy’ has been introduced and failed to ‘change things very much’! Then come back to Lagos-on-the-Potomac and tell us about that ‘culture that needs to change’, rooted in superstition, the Kleptocracy wallowing in luxury. At that point you’ll be in a good position to learn something from Mr Vijay Jayaraj .
Regrettably yours
If reality is slander, then so be it.
Show an African country where cheap reliable energy has been introduced, and lifted the population out of poverty?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/it-keeps-getting-better-president-trump-is-selling/
Two quotes from the link…
Perhaps they shouldn’t have called it the Pelosi building !!
The irony is rich.
Only wealthy economies have “green” movements. For the 8 billion now on planet earth, of which 80% are making less than $10/day, and lack many infrastructures being enjoyed by those in the wealthier countries such as Transportation, Airports, Water filtration, Sanitation, Hospitals, Medical equipment, Appliances, Electronics, Telecommunications systems, Heating and ventilating, so the question for our conversation is: Why are the wealthy countries the only ones pursuing a “green movement” with subsidies and mandates?
If Trump can stop the US from contributing $10M for circumcisions in Mozambique there’s no telling what his administration can do. It doesn’t look good for the ecoloons so far and I doubt it will get any better for the next ….. I’m guessing 20 years even if the Democrats stop committing political suicide. And that’s a big “if”. The Paris Agreement/Accord/whatever already has one foot in the dust bin. Time is on the side of the climate realists.
Note Jeff Alberts’ comment at 7:13 am.
Many small towns in the United States had early electric facilities built by local business leaders. They were not energy entrepreneurs themselves. Thomas Edison electrified New York City by launching the Pearl Street Station, the first central power station in the world, on September 4, 1882. Once the technology was demonstrated other cities quickly followed.
“1885-6 Exact date unknown—Sidney Z. Mitchell builds coal fired central electricity steam powered generation plant at 4th and Kittitas Street.”
See this for historical context. Note reference to Edison and the date of 1855.
https://ci.ellensburg.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/10380/City-of-Ellensburg-Light-Department-History
That’s right, that’s how it begins / began. And now, after a (3/4)-century delay, you can finally have something like this:
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, formerly known as the Millennium Dam is a gravity dam on the Blue Nile River in Ethiopia … constructed between 2011 and 2023, … to relieve Ethiopia’s acute energy shortage and to export electricity to neighbouring countries. With an installed capacity of 5.15 gigawatts, the dam is the largest hydroelectric power plant in Africa … among the 20 largest in the world.
On 20 February 2022, the dam produced electricity for the first time, delivering 375 MW to the grid. A second 375 MW turbine was commissioned in August 2022. The third and fourth 400 MW turbines were commissioned in August 2024. [tbc]
I fail to see how that rebuts my statement. Vastly different culture in the US at that time, and now.
I read it as a supportive statement.
If there are about 2400 coal plants operating globally in 79 countries and there are 189 under construction plus 296 at the pre-construction phase, it seems quite clear that the developing world has rejected the climate agenda for some time now, and good luck to them because they’ve chosen energy reality over the fantasy worlds adopted by those who are renouncing fossil fuels ostensibly to save the planet
I wish someone would explain this to Mark Carney, who is proposing to be Canada’s next Prime Minister.
Nigeria does have a third choice. Limit their insane population growth rate. Ditto Niger, Egypt, Ethiopia, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Use condoms or pills, you f*****s.
We need to stop using the Climate Syndicate’s terminology.
Oil, natural gas, and coal are not fossils. Hydrocarbon and coal are the correct terms.
On a historical note, the expression “fossil fuel” was coined back in 1759 by German chemist, Caspar Neumann.It It was intended as a definition of oil from rock, but oil is not a fossil.
J.D. Rockefeller paid scientists to call oil a “fossil fuel’, at the 1892 at the Geneva Convention.
Just as CO2 is not carbon.
The list goes on and on.
Thank you so much for sharing.