Francesco Sylos Labini
The vast majority of the scientific community believes, on the basis of very solid evidence, that climate change is real and that global warming is caused by human activities. However, the political position of the Trump administration has been more skeptical and has often argued that the problem is exaggerated, used for political purposes, and has criticized international climate policies as harmful to American economic competitiveness.
This orientation translated into concrete choices such as the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017. Trump justified the decision by arguing that the agreement penalized American industry while allowing countries such as China to continue increasing their emissions. At the same time, his administration promoted an energy strategy based on expanding domestic oil and gas production and supporting fossil fuels.
To understand climate skepticism, one must therefore look beyond the scientific debate. Over the past fifteen years the United States has experienced an extraordinary energy transformation thanks to the development of shale oil and shale gas. This technological revolution has made the country the world’s leading producer of oil and gas and one of the main energy exporters. While part of the world discusses decarbonization, Washington has acquired a new and powerful geopolitical advantage: control of a growing share of the global hydrocarbons market.
Energy has always been one of the pillars of international power. It is no coincidence that many of the major geopolitical crises of recent decades have concerned precisely the key regions of oil and gas production and transit. While in the past year the United States has intervened militarily in countries rich in energy resources such as Venezuela and Nigeria, and the war in Ukraine itself has been motivated by the breaking of the energy link between Russia and Europe, the Middle East nevertheless remains the main energy crossroads of the planet.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which about one fifth of the world’s oil and a significant share of liquefied natural gas pass, represents one of the strategic nodes of the global economy. The conflict involving Israel, the United States and Iran shows how central the security of energy routes remains to international balances. And Europe, with almost perfect timing, has replaced Russian gas with supplies largely coming from the United States and the Middle East, thus becoming even more exposed to the geopolitical crises that run precisely through that region.
In this context the role of Israel in the American strategy appears increasingly relevant. The Israeli state effectively functions as a military and political outpost of U.S. interests in the region, helping to maintain pressure on an area on which a significant part of the world’s energy supply depends. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran is already having immediate effects on global energy prices, with an increase of about 10% in the first days, thus undermining the world economy.
In a scenario of growing instability, the United States—among the largest producers and exporters of oil and liquefied natural gas—find themselves in a position of strength: the more unstable the energy market becomes, the greater the strategic value of their exports.
Another decisive element must be added: technological competition with China. The climate transition does not concern only the climate but also the control of the industrial technologies of renewable energy—batteries, solar panels, electric vehicles, and smart energy grids. In these sectors China has achieved a strongly dominant position in global value chains.
The climate debate thus becomes the meeting point of three major dynamics: energy, geopolitics and technology. On one side there is a strategy aimed at decarbonization and leadership in green technologies; on the other, a vision that prioritizes the exploitation of domestic fossil resources. In essence, this reflects the difference between a long-term perspective—today particularly evident in China’s industrial strategy—and a short-term logic that largely characterizes American energy policy and, by extension, that of many of its allies.
Added to this is the role of the media, often controlled by large economic and financial groups, which tend to anesthetize the public debate on climate change by simplifying the complexity of the discussion and softening its economic and political implications. Who loses from a green transition? A recent study by the American economist Isabella Weber has shown that the main beneficiaries of profits derived from fossil fuels are the richest among the rich: 50% of these profits go to the richest 1% of the population.
The climate transition is therefore not only an environmental issue. It is also one of the main arenas in which the economic and political competition of the twenty-first century is being played out.
Francesco sylos labini 
Leave a comment