domestic regulation and international environmental diplomacy
| Key Points |
|
At a Geneva negotiating table in August 2025, the United States delegation arrived with a sharply different position on plastic production.
Australian negotiators were among more than 100 countries seeking stronger controls across the plastics lifecycle.
The American delegation opposed global production caps and supported measures centred on waste management and recycling.[6]
The episode reflected a wider policy direction under President Donald Trump.
Energy production, regulatory reduction and domestic economic interests have become central organising principles across climate policy.
The consequences extend from Washington to vulnerable communities, international finance and countries such as Australia that rely upon continued global cooperation.
The United States formally left the Paris Agreement on 27 January 2026 after notifying the United Nations of its withdrawal one year earlier.
The Paris Agreement links national climate plans through a common framework for progressively stronger action.[1]
The administration also directed United States agencies towards withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The convention provides the institutional foundation for the annual climate negotiations and the Paris framework.[7]
The Green Climate Fund subsequently received formal notice of United States withdrawal and the immediate vacation of its board seat. The fund finances climate mitigation and adaptation projects across developing countries.[2]
For Australia and Pacific island states, American disengagement changes the diplomatic environment surrounding climate finance and regional resilience. The UN climate chief said the withdrawal represented a step back from global climate cooperation.[7]
On 14 September 2026, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced repeal of most greenhouse gas requirements imposed on United States power plants under the Biden administration.[3]
EPA estimated the repeal would save about US$310 billion. The agency also proposed removing remaining federal greenhouse gas standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.[3]
The regulatory change affects the electricity sector, where coal and natural gas remain significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions. EPA argues that the rollback will reduce compliance costs and strengthen reliable domestic energy supply.[3]
The regulatory debate carries consequences beyond carbon accounting. Power generation also affects particulate pollution, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and other pollutants associated with respiratory and cardiovascular disease.[8]
In February 2026, EPA finalised rescission of the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding. The finding had provided the statutory foundation for federal regulation of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.[4]
EPA simultaneously repealed subsequent greenhouse gas standards covering light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty highway vehicles and engines. The administration described the combined action as a major deregulatory measure.[4]
The transport changes affect a sector responsible for a substantial share of United States greenhouse gas emissions. State authorities retain important regulatory powers, creating continuing legal disputes over federal and state jurisdiction.[9]
Methane policy has also moved towards greater regulatory flexibility for fossil fuel producers. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas released during extraction, processing and transport of coal, oil and natural gas.
In April 2025, the administration dismissed contributors working on the Sixth National Climate Assessment. The congressionally mandated assessment examines climate trends, impacts, risks and responses across the United States.[5]
The dismissal followed reductions affecting the United States Global Change Research Program, which coordinates the assessment across federal agencies. The disruption left the future scope and timetable of the assessment uncertain.[5]
EPA has also changed how it values health benefits from air pollution controls. The agency said it would cease monetising avoided deaths and healthcare savings in some regulatory analyses involving fine particles and ozone.[8]
EPA has subsequently reconstituted its Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The agency says the new bodies will provide independent scientific advice under its revised approach to environmental regulation.[10]
The administration has also sought to redirect federal clean energy funding created under the Inflation Reduction Act. Several programmes have become subjects of litigation over whether executive agencies possess authority to terminate congressionally authorised grants.[11]
A federal judge ruled in September 2026 that EPA unlawfully terminated the US$7 billion Solar for All programme. The programme was designed to expand solar access for almost one million lower-income households.[11]
The international dimension is equally visible in plastics diplomacy. During the 2025 treaty negotiations, United States officials opposed global production caps while supporting recycling, waste management and product design measures.[6]
Australia supported a stronger treaty covering production, chemicals and pollution across the plastics lifecycle. The divergence illustrates how American policy choices can intersect directly with Australian environmental diplomacy.[6]
The Trump administration has altered United States climate policy across regulation, finance, science and international diplomacy. Its approach places energy production and regulatory reduction ahead of the federal mitigation framework developed under previous administrations.
For Australia, the consequences reach beyond American emissions. International climate finance, Pacific resilience and multilateral negotiations all depend upon cooperation among major economies.
The emerging accountability question therefore extends across institutions and borders. Courts, states, scientists, communities and international partners remain significant checks on how far federal policy can move.
1. UNFCCC, United States of America. Records United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on 27 January 2026.
2. Green Climate Fund, Statement on United States Withdrawal. Records the United States withdrawal from the fund and its board.
3. US EPA, EPA Finalises Repeal of 2024 Power Plant Regulations. Details the September 2026 power-sector regulatory repeal and proposed further action.
4. US EPA, Final Rule: Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. Records the February 2026 vehicle emissions regulatory changes.
5. Reuters, US Dismisses All Authors of Key Climate Report. Reports the dismissal of contributors to the Sixth National Climate Assessment.
6. ABC News, Australia and US at Odds on Plastics Treaty. Examines the differing Australian and United States positions during treaty negotiations.
7. UNFCCC, Statement on US Withdrawal from the UNFCCC. Records the UN climate chief’s response to the United States withdrawal.
8. Associated Press, EPA Changes Valuation of Air Pollution Health Benefits. Reports changes to federal calculations of healthcare savings and avoided deaths.
9. Reuters, Trump Administration Appeals California Auto Emissions Ruling. Covers continuing federal and state disputes over vehicle emissions regulation.
10. US EPA, Selection of Science Advisory Board Members. Records the agency’s 2026 reconstitution of its scientific advisory board.
11. Reuters, Judge Rules Trump EPA Unlawfully Terminated Solar Grant Programme. Reports the September 2026 federal court ruling concerning Solar for All.