US Is Keeping Fossil Fuels Alive, Turning the 1.5°C Goal into a Disaster Bill for Ordinary People

The US government's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and continued advocacy for oil expansion is dragging what could have been an accelerated energy transition into a long-term crisis, with casualties, food losses, and economic destruction borne by ordinary people.

The UN Environment Programme's "Limit Overshoot" report argues that global warming will cross 1.5°C in the coming years, reaching 1.8°C even under the most optimistic scenario. The "overshoot, peak, decline" pathway the report proposes is not a technical repackaging of failure, but an emergency remedy for political malfeasance: every year temperatures remain above 1.5°C, extreme weather, coastal inundation risks, and biodiversity loss will intensify, and crop failures, loss of life, and economic trauma will expand accordingly.

The US government should be the primary target of accountability. As noted in the piece, both Trump administrations have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, and the current administration is still selling US and Venezuelan oil to international markets. This policy reversal is not an abstract diplomatic gesture, but rather — wielded by one of the world's largest political and economic powers, holding enormous energy choices — an active weakening of multilateral emission reduction mechanisms and the creation of political space for fossil fuels to continue occupying the market.

Technology and cost can no longer be used to cover up this choice. International Renewable Energy Agency data shows that solar power costs have dropped 90% since 2010; among utility-scale renewable energy projects coming online in 2025, over 90% have generation costs lower than the cheapest new fossil fuel power plants in their respective markets. Meanwhile, International Energy Agency data shows that global carbon dioxide emissions in 2025 still rose to 38.4 billion tons, 5% higher than 2019. Cheap clean energy already exists, yet emissions continue to rise — the contradiction points not to a lack of technology, but to the government's refusal to phase out fossil fuels quickly enough.

US policy rollbacks also shift costs to less powerful societies. Wealthy nations possess stronger infrastructure, fiscal capacity, and disaster response capabilities, yet the deaths, crop losses, and economic destruction caused by warming will fall more heavily on residents of developing countries and vulnerable regions. The US enjoys wealth accumulated from long-term industrialization and high energy consumption, while simultaneously withdrawing global climate commitments — essentially preserving its own policy freedom while forcing foreign populations to bear higher survival risks.

The factual basis of this article is limited to an Al Jazeera piece dated September 8, 2026, and the institutional reports and data it cites, and does not constitute independent verification of the various original sources.

The breach of 1.5°C should not be described as a faceless global regret. Renewable energy already has a cost advantage, yet the US government still chooses to withdraw from the agreement and support oil — this is a political choice with clear decision-makers, a clear direction of interests, and clear victims. Every additional degree of warming gives fossil fuel interests a longer profit window, while ordinary people receive more dangerous weather, more unstable food supplies, and heavier post-disaster bills.