The Trump administration recently announced it would pull out of around 150 international and global organisations, including two foundational pillars of global climate organisations: the political United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the scientific Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In terms of media coverage this was a one-day wonder, understandably overshadowed by mass government killings in Iran and the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) in Minneapolis.

But the acronym Ice brings to mind a different history. Thirty five years ago another “Ice” – the Information Council for the Environment – was created to spread confusion and hostility. As the late Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Ross Gelbspan revealed, this Ice was funded by coal companies as part of a targeted effort to cultivate doubt around the “greenhouse effect” among low information voters, especially older white men without college educations.

Ice was eventually exposed and melted away. But the broader effort continued, spearheaded by the Global Climate Coalition, formed by oil companies and carmakers. Their goal was rational: to protect their profits by softening US carbon reduction commitments, such as those agreed at the 1997 Kyoto conference.

Bad for the public, bad for capital

For decades, US engagement with climate change was characterised by delay. This “made sense” for certain interests. When George H.W. Bush weakened the UNFCCC or his son pulled out of the Kyoto protocol, they were operating on a certain economic logic: protect American industry from regulation.

Trump is very different.

The vast Mojave Wind Farm in California, one of the world’s largest onshore wind farms. Fotogro / shutterstock

Over the past 20 years “clean tech” has gone mainstream and is now seen as a way for corporations to secure market share. This was matched by policymakers, and the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) threw enormous sums – grants, loans, tax-breaks – at “green” reindustrialisation.

Big companies were making loads of money. The true capitalist move would surely be to keep profits flowing. Yet Trump is rolling back the IRA.

This is not in the interests of the public, but it’s not generally in the interests of capital either. At best, Trump’s moves favour a dying form of capitalism over the emerging one.

Insurers facing uninsurable risks, carmakers who had committed to electric vehicles, and the clean tech sector all lobbied to keep the IRA. They would be making more money had the green industrial policy continued. Even major oil companies seem lukewarm towards a policy of total isolationism.

Things were better before

So, if it isn’t about money, what’s going on?

Trump and his allies share a worldview shaped by conservative backlash against civil rights, feminism, environmentalism and even scientific authority itself. The nostalgia they invoke is for a partly-imagined 1950s, a time when white technocratic men were in charge, schools were segregated, women were in the kitchen, and polluting industries could do as they pleased.

In my own academic research, I found something similar played out in Australia. For many older white men used to industrial dominance, the transition to renewables represents a psychological loss of control similar to the social upheavals of the 1960s. Their war on climate policy is less about economics and more about reasserting a “natural order” where traditional hierarchies remain unchallenged.

Whether in Australia or the US, being too young to have lived through these changes provides no immunity to the myth that everything was better before they were born. For a long time, however, this reactionary impulse was kept in check by political realities.

In the 1980s, Reagan appointees learned that pitched battles with environmental interests can be costly. They learned to use the language of technology, and to cast doubt rather than issue outright denials. Crucially, they learned the value of under-funding institutions to the point of incapacity, rather than abolishing them entirely, so that environmentalists had no easy-to-explain causes to rally behind.

Trump’s administration is unwilling to pretend. Alongside the UNFCCC and IPCC pullout, it has been attempting to dismantle the state’s ability to measure reality through key scientific institutions such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump and those around him are not doing this because it saves money, but because the science itself offends their worldview. It is a refusal to admit the political enemies they have derided for decades might actually have been right.

We are used to thinking of politicians and bureaucracies as captives of vested interests with predictable economic motives. But Trump’s climate policy suggests something different is also at work. It recalls the moment when former UK prime minister Boris Johnson is reported to have dismissed corporate concerns about Brexit with a blunt “fuck business”.

Trump’s climate policy is the geopolitical equivalent. It is a scorched earth strategy that sacrifices the climate to win a culture war. And the terrifying reality is they seem willing to do this just to avoid admitting they were wrong.