Climate Justice or Climate Hypocrisy? North America’s Green Promises and Global Responsibilities in 2025
- Alina Chernokon
- Dec 10, 2025
- 5 min read
Updated: Mar 23
Introduction
In 2025, North America finds itself at a familiar yet increasingly uncomfortable crossroads: the region often speaks of climate leadership, yet its policies tell a much more complicated story. Canada’s new prime minister, Mark Carney, has set out an ambitious Climate Competitiveness Strategy, framing clean energy as both an economic engine and the backbone of the country’s long-term prosperity. South of the border, however, the election of Donald Trump has reversed many of the United States’ climate commitments almost overnight. One of his first actions in office was to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, a move that stunned many international observers and frustrated global partners.
The two countries’ diverging paths have created uncertainty far beyond the continent. Canada aims to cast climate action as a strategic advantage, while Washington leans hard into “energy dominance,” a slogan now backed by expanded drilling and deregulation. For the Global South, these shifts translate into delayed climate-finance flows, increased fossil-fuel exports, and a weakening faith in international cooperation.
With extreme heat, flooding, and storms intensifying around the world, the core question has become unavoidable: is North America offering genuine climate leadership, or simply a polished brand that falters under scrutiny?
Canada’s New Direction: Climate Competitiveness or Controlled Ambition?
After years of uneven progress and political hesitation, Canada’s 2025 climate strategy represents a significant shift in tone. Carney’s government has committed more than CA$1 trillion over five years to expand nuclear power, accelerate renewable-energy projects, and upgrade the country’s ageing electrical grids. The message is clear: climate action is no longer framed as a sacrifice, but as a chance to reshape the national economy.
Canada’s updated 2025 submission to the UNFCCC sets a new target:cutting emissions 45–50 percent below 2005 levels by 2035. While the goal is more ambitious than previous pledges, the Climate Action Tracker still labels it “progressive but insufficient,” citing Canada’s continued dependence on oil sands and pipeline infrastructure. Analysts warn that without meaningful cuts in fossil-fuel production, the strategy risks drifting into a familiar pattern: strong language, modest outcomes.
Domestically, reactions have been mixed but generally hopeful. The Climate Institute has praised the government for embedding climate planning into broader economic policy, though many experts note that execution, not ambition, will determine whether Canada can actually stay on course. Others point out that Canada remains one of the G7’s largest providers of fossil-fuel subsidies, a contradiction that continues to trouble environmental groups.
Whether this new approach marks a decisive turn or simply a rebranded continuation of past struggles remains to be seen.
The United States in 2025: Retreat, Deregulation, and the Politics of “Energy Dominance”
The United States, meanwhile, has taken a dramatically different path. President Trump’s return to office triggered an immediate rollback of key environmental protections. Leaving the Paris Agreement for a second time signalled that the administration intended to prioritize domestic energy production above international commitments.
The Environmental Protection Agency soon announced plans to overturn the Endangerment Finding, the legal basis that allows for the federal government’s regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions. Environmental law experts warn that rescinding it could undo more than a decade of regulatory progress, effectively returning the U.S. to a pre-2009 policy landscape.
At the same time, the newly appointed Energy Secretary, Chris Wright - long involved in the fossil-fuel sector - has promoted what he calls a “full-spectrum energy renaissance.” In practice, this has included reopening drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Gulf of Mexico, decisions that reverse previous restrictions and bolster oil and gas development.
The international response has been sharply critical. European negotiators described the shift as “destabilizing,” while Pacific Island nations - already facing existential climate risks - expressed alarm that U.S. disengagement could stall progress on loss-and-damage financing. Overall, Washington’s retreat from global cooperation has raised serious doubts about the reliability of U.S. climate leadership.
The Global Justice Gap: Eroding Trust and Unequal Burdens
The distance between Canadian ambition and American rollback has widened what many call the global climate-justice gap—the increasingly visible divide between countries responsible for the bulk of historical emissions and those suffering the harshest consequences.
At the 2025 UN Climate Summit in Bonn, frustration among developing nations was unmistakable. Leaders again emphasized that the long-promised USD 100 billion per year from wealthy states remains unfulfilled. While Canada has modestly increased its contributions, the U.S. has halted federal climate-finance payments entirely, further undermining trust in the system.
The gap is not just financial - it is deeply structural. The UN Environment Programme’s Adaptation Gap Report warns that developing countries will need nearly USD 387 billion annually by 2030 to prepare for worsening droughts, storms, and sea-level rise. Current funding levels fall far short. In Bonn, climate activist Vanessa Nakate captured the frustration plainly: “The Global South is being asked to adapt while the Global North refuses to transform.”
These tensions have ignited broader questions about fairness, responsibility, and the credibility of international climate diplomacy.
From Rhetoric to Real Partnership
If North America hopes to rebuild trust, words alone will not suffice. Policy specialists argue that meaningful climate leadership in 2025 must be built on three pillars: reliable climate finance, transparent technology sharing, and real supply-side emissions cuts - not just consumer-level measures.
Canada’s new strategy may offer a framework for this, but it will require political consistency and a willingness to address the contradictions at the heart of its own energy sector. The United States, despite its federal retreat, still has pockets of climate leadership at the state level. States like California and New York continue to pursue Paris-aligned targets, suggesting that subnational actors may play a larger role in shaping the U.S. climate trajectory than the federal government.
Ultimately, North America’s influence on global climate governance will depend on its ability to align ambition with action, not simply on its capacity to articulate high-level goals.
Conclusion
The climate landscape of 2025 paints a continent moving in two opposing directions. Canada is accelerating a clean-economy transition built on competitiveness and long-term planning, while the United States is reshaping its policies around fossil-fuel expansion and regulatory withdrawal. Together, these shifts have widened the global justice gap and shaken confidence in the reliability of North American climate leadership.
As climate impacts intensify, what matters most is not the size of the promises made but the durability of the actions taken. Without steady commitments - financial, political, and practical - climate diplomacy risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative. In the years ahead, North America will be judged less by its rhetoric and more by whether it delivers on the responsibilities it has long acknowledged.
Bibliography
Alcoforado, F., 2025. COP 30 and the Future of Climate on Planet Earth.
Associated Press, 2024. ‘Trump Names Fossil Fuel Executive Chris Wright as Energy Secretary’, Associated Press, 17 November.
Garcia-Soto, C., 2025. ‘Reversing climate progress: consequences and solutions in the wake of US policy rollbacks’, npj Climate Action, 4(1), p.63.
Government of Canada, 2025. Canada’s New Climate Competitiveness Strategy. 9 November. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/.
Reuters, 2025. ‘Trump to Withdraw from Paris Climate Agreement’, Reuters, 20 January.
The Climate Institute, 2025. ‘Budget 2025 Takes Clear Steps to Strengthen Canada’s Climate Competitiveness’, 4 November.
UN Environment Programme, 2024. Adaptation Gap Report 2024., November.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2025. ‘Nationally Determined Contributions: Canada, 2025 Submission’, February.
Washington Post, 2025. ‘EPA Moves to Rescind Endangerment Finding’, The Washington Post, 29 July.
Comments