������Ƶ

As the Trump administration works to��, a larger struggle is playing out across multiple industries.

Until recently, oil companies and their defenders generally reacted to calls for regulating carbon emissions by��. However, I believe this approach is becoming less effective as climate change effects worsen and����intensify worldwide.

As a scholar who focuses on the��, I see growing anxiety among corporate elites. Some fossil fuel defenders are embracing a new strategy that I call��. With a transition to a low-carbon economy looming, they are accelerating investments in fossil fuel extraction while����to delay climate action.

Climate defiance is leading to some surprising clashes between the Trump Administration, bent on extreme deregulation and extraction, and many other companies who recognize that the fossil fuel economy is unsustainable, even if they have not embarked upon a green transition. Climate change is sparking this self-reflection, which is writing a new chapter in global warming politics.

Car Wars

One high-profile example is the Trump administration’s effort to weaken corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards negotiated by the Obama administration, which were projected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by an estimated . Early in the Trump presidency, both�������Ի�������for the Trump administration to weaken the emissions standards.

But when it became clear that the Trump administration planned to go further than simply weakening the standards, and to freeze them altogether in 2020,��. California and more than a dozen other states insisted on the right to��, and four major automakers – Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW – joined��.

Those companies, who represent about 30% of the U.S. market, have now agreed to adhere to stricter emissions standards similar to the Obama plan, citing the need for��. In retaliation, the Justice Department recently opened an����into the pact.

Meanwhile, Toyota, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler are��. Their decision surprised many industry watchers, particularly given����in designing low-emissions vehicles.

Methane

Another divisive issue is the Trump administration’s plan to ease regulations curbing methane emissions from natural gas production. Energy companies tout natural gas as a����because it generates fewer carbon dioxide emissions than coal or oil.

However, methane – the main component of natural gas – is a greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global warming. According to some studies, methane leaks from natural gas extraction and production, known as fugitive emissions, may make natural gas extracted from shale rock .

Several major oil companies, including BP and Royal Dutch Shell,��. Why? They have invested heavily in natural gas as a way to extend their fossil fuel business, and����to the notion that natural gas should play a prominent role in a green transition, especially as renewable energy��.

In contrast, the American Petroleum Institute and smaller oil and gas companies��, claiming that methane control is too expensive.

Shades of Green

Beyond these specific controversies, many companies in the energy sector and beyond have voiced support for moving to a lower-carbon economy.

For example, in August 2019 the Business Roundtable, a corporate advocacy group comprised of almost 200 CEOs from major American corporations, declared that corporate responsibility meant��. Instead they adopted a broader definition that includes serving customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders, and pledged to “protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.”

Such declarations are easy to dismiss as��. Corporate responses to climate change have largely touted market-based reforms, like��, which would not jeopardize ongoing fossil fuel extraction and profits.

Indeed, global fossil fuel and overall energy consumption��. And while banks may highlight their��, they also have provided����in fossil fuel financing since the 2016 Paris Agreement entered into force.

Meanwhile,����warn that avoiding warming on a catastrophic scale will require “rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems.” Many experts assert that change on this scale will ultimately require countries to��.

Others assert that investments in renewable energy alone��. Historically, they argue, new renewable energy additions have mostly��, rather than displacing fossil fuels. From this perspective, phasing out fossil fuels will require political action.

Such a shift poses an existential threat to major oil companies. Big Oil touts its green projects, but renewable energy accounts for only��. In the view of energy scholars Daniel Sperling and Lewis Fulton, Big Oil has “” for a green transition.

An Existential Fight

In my view, struggles between the Trump administration and major corporations over environmental deregulation signal an awareness that the fossil fuel economy’s days are numbered. Although climate deniers occupy prominent positions in the White House, Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency today, recent polls show that����are worried about climate change and believe it will harm them.

As I argue in my��, our fossil fuel system was set up to put the world to work for the benefit of European and American powers. Its profits come from undervaluing the labor and resources that feed it, which I believe has led not only to climate change but to��.

A green transition is therefore not only a technical project. As����in Green New Deals suggests, climate change��.

I see corporations beginning to sense this challenge. Some companies, especially those built upon fossil fuels, will continue to resist moving toward a lower-carbon future. Others will promote market reforms rather than broader systemic changes. I believe, however, that the most forward-looking must begin to imagine how they will fit into a just and decarbonized economy.

This story originally appeared in .