The EPA's reversal of the risk finding marks a sharp turn in American climate policy, but even though China is a leader in the production of green technologies, it is still unclear whether anyone is willing to fill the political vacuum that Washington is leaving behind.
American leadership on the climate crisis has suffered a major blow in recent months, perhaps the most significant in years. The most symbolic and practical step was the rescission of the EPA’s 2009 “risk finding,” the same document that determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and served as a central basis for federal climate regulation in the United States. Politically, this is a clear message: Washington is not currently seeking to lead the fight against the climate crisis, but rather to withdraw from it. (U.S. EPA)
In an article on THE CONVERSATION website Stephen Lezak, director of a program at the Smith School of Entrepreneurship and the Environment at Oxford University, explains that the implications are broader than the American legal question. The United States has been, for years, even when its policies have been inconsistent, one of the most important centers of power in the climate arena: in UN conferences, in financing, in standards, and in its ability to signal to markets where the world is going. When it withdrew, a vacuum was created. The question is whether another country, especially China, will rush to fill it.
On the face of it, China has every reason to step into this role. It already holds a dominant position in green technology supply chains. According to the International Energy Agency, China controls more than 80% of the production stages in the solar panel value chain. At the same time, the global transition to renewable energy continues to gain momentum: IRENA determined that 91% of new renewable energy projects commissioned in 2024 are expected to produce electricity more cheaply than any new fossil fuel alternative. That is, even without American leadership, the fundamental economic direction is still tilted in favor of clean energy. (irena.org)
But climate leadership is not just about controlling the production of batteries, electric vehicles or panels. It also requires a willingness to lead politically, raise international ambition and put pressure on other countries. Here the Chinese picture is much more reserved. In September 2025, China pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 7%–10% below peak levels by 2035, but analyses in Carbon Brief estimated that this target is still far from what is needed to maintain the 1.5°C warming target. In other words, China is ready to lead industrially, but it is much less clear that it is ready to lead politically in a truly aggressive way. (Carbon Brief)
The broader geopolitical context also weakens the prospect of clear climate leadership. The world is entering a period of conflict, growing suspicion, and a weaker international system. Such conditions are not conducive to climate cooperation, because effective climate policy relies on trust: on countries believing that others are doing their part. When the global agenda is dominated by security tensions, trade wars, technological competition, and regional crises, climate considerations are easily pushed aside in favor of more immediate needs.
And yet, there is also a deeper factor working in the opposite direction: health. Air pollution continues to be one of the most powerful drivers of pressure to reduce fossil fuel use. The World Health Organization states that air pollution causes about 7 million deaths a year worldwide. So even if the climate motivation weakens, many countries and cities will still continue to promote a transition to clean energy simply because their citizens demand cleaner air, cheaper electricity, and less dependence on polluting fuels. (World Health Organization)
This leads to a less dramatic, but perhaps more accurate, conclusion: the world is not currently moving towards a single clear “successor” to the United States on climate. Instead, a divided leadership is emerging. China will continue to lead in the production and deployment of green technologies as long as it serves its economic and strategic interests. Europe will try to hold a more regulatory and ambitious line. Cities, states, and private companies will continue to push for a transition to clean energy from the bottom up. But a single center of power, capable of both setting the tone and enforcing global ambition, is still nowhere in sight.
So the vacuum left by the United States is not just an empty space; it is also a symptom of a new era. It is an era in which the climate crisis is not going away, the technologies to solve it continue to improve, and even economic logic supports many of them — but global political leadership is becoming diffuse, hesitant, and less courageous. Climate change, of course, will not wait for the international system to reorganize.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
