US President Donald Trump doesn’t just deny climate change — he mocks it. During his renewed presidency, he’s doubling down. He sneers at wind turbines, brags about “beautiful clean coal,” and promises to “drill, baby, drill,” as if he’s offering freedom — not disaster. But this isn’t just political theatre. It’s performance with a purpose: a reassertion of dominance — over nature, over science, over anyone who dares to challenge the fossil-fuelled status quo.
Let’s be clear: 86 per cent of the emissions currently trapped in our atmosphere — blanketing the planet and fuelling floods, fires, deadly storms and rising seas — come from just three things: oil, gas and coal. This is not a vague environmental problem. This is a fossil fuel problem.
This is more than energy policy. It’s ideology. The Trump administration is once again a fossil-fuel dream team: oil lobbyists, coal barons and climate deniers working hand-in-glove to dismantle environmental protections and flood the world with more oil, gas and coal. Their goal isn’t energy security or economic freedom. It’s control. Over land. Over people. Over the future.
Fossil fuels have always been about more than powering cars or heating homes. They are the foundation of a political and cultural system that rewards exploitation and punishes restraint. The global fossil-fuel industry has made $2.8 billion in profit every day for the past 50 years. That kind of money doesn’t just buy influence — it builds a worldview. One where nature is a thing to be conquered, not cared for. Where profit is the measure of progress. Where those closest to the land — Indigenous Peoples, women and racialized communities — are treated as obstacles, not leaders.
That’s why the return of Trump is so dangerous. His administration is not just pro-fossil fuel — it is a full-blown extraction regime. It’s the politics of domination repackaged as patriotism. We saw this in his first term: the gutting of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the opening of sacred Indigenous lands to drilling, the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and the relentless attacks on climate science. Now, we’re seeing it again — with renewed speed and greater confidence.
And it’s not just environmental protections under attack. In a sign of how deeply the fossil fuel worldview runs, even previously progressive sectors like the tech industry are being pulled backward — tech leaders who once championed innovation are now funding political movements aimed at suppressing diversity, equity, inclusion and climate action. Empowered, diverse communities — communities that value cooperation over conquest — are seen as a threat to the fossil-fuel political economy. That’s why those in power are working to roll back civil rights and silence those demanding changes. In their eyes, the fewer voices challenging the system, the easier it is to keep exploiting people and the planet without consequence.
And here’s the deeper truth: the fossil fuel system is designed to perpetuate dependence. If you rely on oil and gas to heat your home, drive your car and feed your family, you remain tethered to the system — and it keeps generating profits. That’s why they’re fighting so hard. Because the new energy systems — based on wind, sun and community control — aren’t just cleaner and safer. They’re harder to monopolize. No one owns the sun. No one controls the wind. And that makes renewables an existential threat to those who want to maintain dependence, power and profits.
But here’s what they won’t say out loud: they’re fighting so hard because they know they’re losing.
The world is changing. Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in most regions. We have the technology to replace the vast majority of fossil fuel uses. And we’ve already extracted more than we can safely burn. The problem isn’t capability — it’s political will.
Sixteen countries are now participating in a global initiative to negotiate a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, a proposed international framework that would end fossil fuel expansion and support countries in building a just transition. From Indigenous-led solar cooperatives in Canada to energy commons in Europe and Latin America, communities are showing what post-carbon leadership looks like. This is real momentum — not just policy, but a shift in imagination.
Fossil fuels are also killing us. A recent study estimates that more people die premature deaths each year from air pollution caused by fossil fuels than from any other single cause — about eight million people annually. The fossil fuel industry is stealing our children to asthma. It is stealing lives and livelihoods as more of the planet suffers under lethal heat. And perhaps, most insidiously, it has stolen our imagination — our capacity to envision a world without being dependent on their oil, gas, and coal, and the political structures they uphold.
A recent Oxford study shows that more than 80 per cent of the public now understands that climate change is happening and supports climate action — but most people remain silent. And that silence is exactly what the fossil fuel system depends on. Right now, as the world burns, drowns and gasps for air, what we need most is not passivity — it’s courage. Speaking out — about the reality of the crisis and the possibilities of the future — is an act of resistance. It’s an act of imagination.
We’ve been taught to believe that fossil fuels are inevitable. That their grip on our economies and politics is unshakable. But that’s a myth — and like all myths of power, it’s crumbling. A post-fossil world is not only possible — it’s already being built. The challenge now is to scale it, defend it and organize against those trying to drag us backward.
That starts with naming what we’re up against. Trump’s energy agenda isn’t about freedom — it’s about domination. It’s about preserving obscene profits for the few, while communities pay the price in wildfires, floods, poisoned air and rising inequality. It’s about maintaining a system that sees both people and the planet as disposable.
This isn’t just about emissions. It’s about power. We’re not just fighting climate change — we’re confronting a system where fossil fuels are entwined with a specific identity: one that valorizes domination, control and a nostalgic return to traditional hierarchies. Political theorist Cara Daggett calls this phenomenon petro-masculinity — a cultural formation where fossil fuel consumption becomes a way to assert masculine authority in response to perceived threats from climate action and gender equality. In this context, the aggressive defence of fossil fuels isn’t solely about economics — it’s also about upholding a social order. Challenging fossil fuel dominance means challenging the identities and values that sustain it.
So, talk about it. Talk about climate change. Question the ads pushed by the oil and gas industry that fearmonger about scarcity and price while trying to connect fossil fuel use to “freedom.” Demand that elected officials support climate action and a fossil fuel phase-out to keep us safe and protect what we love. Join the movement calling for a Fossil Fuel Treaty. Oppose new fossil fuel projects and infrastructure being proposed in your community. And most importantly, dream big.
One of the worst crimes of the fossil fuel industry is that it has used its bloated profits and relentless lobbying to steal our imagination. So, let’s take it back. Imagine a world that is cleaner and safer. Where our kids don’t get asthma, our water isn’t toxic, and our cities aren’t choked in smoke from terrifying fires. Imagine that one day we’ll be telling our children we used to power our homes and cars with gas — and they’ll barely believe us, because the world will be such a different place.
Tzeporah Berman BA, MES, LLD (honoris causa) is an award-winning climate policy expert who has held many positions advising governments and designing local and global advocacy campaigns. She is the co-founder and international program director at Stand.earth and the founder and chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.
Comments
Despite women comprising half of humanity, "Indigenous Peoples, women, and racialized communities" continue to be lumped together as the recipients of the targeted "DEI" programs. This concept actually started years ago with what was called "affirmative action," an attempt to enable more women into the solidly male-dominated "workplace."
So I agree that this current, world-wide backlash of "da boys" IS "social order," as it was then. It can be seen as a continuation of the old "battle of the sexes."
No wonder religious doctrine was recruited decades ago (AND has now manifested beyond its adherents' wildest dreams with "Project 2025") because despite being the oldest example and unbelievably STILL working model of patriarchy in the world, it remains wholly unchallenged.
It's the original AI.
Someone please tell Ms. Berman not to sign off on "climate" plans premised on oil and gas expansion. Big dreamers should not sign off on climate plans designed to fail.
Berman on Alberta's climate plan 2016: "I understand that we produce over two million barrels a day, and that will increase under the new oilsands emissions limit. I am supporting that climate change plan."
Berman, 2016: "Though I have been a vocal critic of 'business as usual' in the oilsands, I recognize that change doesn't happen over night."
Change doesn't ever happen if we keep going in the wrong direction!
Berman, 2019: "While the NDP strategy was far from perfect, at least it was moving in the right direction, albeit slowly."
Far from perfect? Notley's climate plan would have allowed oilsands emissions to increase 43% ABOVE 2015 levels.
Berman: "In the environmental community, we need to hold ourselves accountable for vilifying those who work in the oil industry..."
In reality, companies like Exxon now find themselves in court for decades-long campaigns of deception, doubt-mongering, and denial of global warming.
Berman, 2018: "The so-called debate we do have [on industry and the environment] has become a crass, simplistic call to arms that is a disservice to Albertans and Canadians. It forces people to 'take sides' instead of finding solutions . . . we managed to have solutions-based conversations [back then] that were respectful and grounded in shared values. It seems a lifetime from where we are today."
Berman, 2025: "Organize against those trying to drag us backward."
Berman subsequently acknowledged that ENGO collusion with the oil industry was a failure, because the industry is adamantly opposed to climate action.
Of course, anybody paying the slightest attention could have told her so and saved her the trouble.
In 2015, top environmental brass held hands with Big Oil CEOs on stage with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley. The ENGOs applauded Notley's non-climate plan. Or rather Big Oil's "climate" plan:
Greenlighting oilsands expansion enabled by new export pipelines in return for a small carbon price that would not impair their profits and a fraudulent oilsands cap that would not outlive the Notley government. Industry would later reject both the consumer and industry carbon price also.
ENGOs provided political cover to oilsands expansion. Under Notley's fraudulent cap, oilsands emissions would rise, not fall. No requirement to accurately report emissions.
The doctor tells his 250 pound patient he needs to lose 100 pounds pronto. The patient promises to cap his weight gain at 350 pounds.
NOT what the doctor ordered.
Why would any self-respecting environmentalist take part in this deception?
Controlled opposition ENGOs displace and stifle grassroots protest:
"It's a matter of trying to, what they called have interactions, fruitful interactions and partnerships with environmental organizations, bringing the environmental groups inside of the tent making them feel as if they have power and in the process they become compromised, lower their expectations of demands and become tame. On the other hand, those organizations that can't be brought into the tent and co-opted are subjected to harassment campaigns. So there are public relations companies that specialize in going through the trash cans of environmental groups, engaging in harassing activities of environmental groups."
— Environmental sociologist Bob Brulle at Brown University
The real mission of corporate, foundation-funded "environmentalists"? Provide political cover for backroom deals, collaborate with industry, give the oilsands and the government of the day a green varnish, and sell out future generations.
With its support for taxpayer-funded carbon capture (CCS) in the oilsands, The Pembina Institute carries on this ignoble tradition today.
The same Pembina Institute has long promoted oxymoronic "responsible oilsands development". Also collaborated with industry on failed climate plans.
"Responsible oilsands development" is brilliant marketing, supreme greenwashing, and utterly meaningless.
Former Pembina director, self-styled "pragmatic environmentalist", Ed Whittingham is an industry collaborator and climate contrarian -- on the wrong side of many climate issues and bad deals with industry. His advocacy for false climate plans and new oilsands pipelines puts him in opposition to IPCC and IEA reports. Not only does he support carbon capture and storage (CCS) for O&G, he also supports CCS for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
Meanwhile, The National Observer's lead columnist supported TMX, promotes new pipelines in 2025, rejects carbon pricing, opposes an emissions cap, and supports CCS. Parrots CAPP's talking points.
Max Fawcett talks out of both sides of his mouth on climate change. Alternately admonishing the "cynical" Conservatives for their failure to take climate change seriously and advocating for fossil fuel expansion under the Liberals. Talk about cynical.
Choose your friends, allies, leaders, and spokesmen wisely.
No one is forcing you to subscribe.
No one is forcing The National Observer to platform a lead columnist who promotes fossil-fuel expansion and parrots CAPP's talking points, either.
Yes, I could cancel my subscription because of Mr. Fawcett. Throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The national broadcaster's climate/energy reporting is also extremely suspect on occasion. I could also stop reading articles on CBC.
More constructively, readers can submit complaints to the CBC Ombudsman. CBC editors respond. The Ombudsman reviews the complaint and CBC's response. In some cases, CBC may acknowledge the error of its ways and seek to improve. That should be every media outlet's goal.
Sure, unhappy readers are free to cancel their subscriptions. Far better for The National Observer to live up to the journalistic standards it sets for itself. Hire a different lead columnist.
"Canada's National Observer strives to meet the highest standards of ethical and responsible journalism.
"… We strive to lead in reporting on climate change policy and problems in Canada, leadership in the race to net zero, equity and Indigenous issues, to deliver stories that can be used to protect public health and human rights, press governments to take action to mitigate the threat of climate change."
https://www.nationalobserver.com/ethics
"We focus on climate, democracy, and social issues, offering trusted journalism that connects the dots on complex issues and informs change.
"… Past investigations into pipelines, oil sands pollution, and climate disinformation have helped inform public conversations and government responses."
https://www.nationalobserver.com/journalism-changing-climate
In the midst of a climate crisis, platforming a lead columnist who promotes fossil-fuel expansion and offers dubious energy policy analysis is hardly ethical and responsible journalism. Fawcett's columns are climate disinformation.
Media outlets committed to climate journalism in public service should stop giving fossil-fuel boosters and climate change deniers airtime and column space. That applies to the CBC as well as CNO — "Canada’s most trusted voice in climate journalism".
Thank you Geoffrey for holding journalism to account. I subscribed to CNO due to their PMRA articles. If there is a lack in cogent journalism within the paper in other areas I am happy to be informed.
I must confess I found this particular article heavy on platitudes and baffle gab. I look forward to journalism based on facts and, as CO2 acidification and warming is indeed a threat, perhaps looking more to solutions and the people working on them.
Thanks Tzeporah for your consistent efforts, lived experience and insight. I read the article about petro-masculinity to which you refer. It too was very well done. We don’t talk about the gender aspects of environmental destruction, and it isn’t all attributable to men. But most of it is—the guys at the top are enslaved to the shareholder model that puts profits at the very top of the priority pile. Full stop. What drives me bananas is companies’ PR spin that almost always features young women in hard hats, with vials in their hands or small trees they are planting. It is just so hypocritical: “C’mon ladies, you too can work at our low-paying jobs and never climb the corporate ladder (subtext—you can’t stomach acting against your entire value system).” So yes, petro-masculinity is about control of the world order and returning to the good old days when you-know-who was in charge. Let’s talk about it more.