On September 23, 2025, at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a sprawling address in which he devoted a significant portion to attacking climate science, disparaging renewable energy, and cosmically dismissing multilateral climate cooperation.
His central claim is that climate change is "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” that is both dangerous and deeply misleading. Below, I offer a point-by-point rebuttal of Trump’s major claims, and reflect on the broader implications of such a posture at a global forum.
The “Climate Con Job” Claim: Reckless Dismissal of Scientific Consensus, Repeating a false narrative.
Trump’s framing of climate change as a global deception is not only irresponsible but also ignores the immense body of scientific evidence to the contrary. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and countless peer-reviewed studies have long established that human activity, primarily fossil fuel combustion and land use changes, is the dominant driver of the warming observed since the mid-20th century. To characterise that as a “con job” is to reject not just individual studies, but whole scientific institutions and decades of accumulation of data. It is a political posture, not a defensible scientific one.
Mis-representing “failed predictions”
Trump also claimed that U.N. climate predictions “haven’t come true” and have been exaggerated. But this is a straw man. Climate projections are probabilistic and contingent, not guarantees. Furthermore, many observed trends (ice melt, sea-level rise, increase in extreme heat days, more frequent intense precipitation events) have aligned with expectations or in some cases outpaced them. Simply labeling the models “incorrect” without engaging with their uncertainty bands or the real-world empirical data betrays either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation.
The Attack on Renewables: Factual Misstatements and Ideological Posturing
“They don’t work” / “Too expensive” - blatant falsehood.
This is one of Trump’s repeated lines: renewable energy (solar, wind) is too unreliable, too expensive, and incapable of supporting modern infrastructure.
But the evidence tells a very different story. In 2024:
Around 80% of the growth in global electricity generation came from renewables and nuclear sources.
Renewable energy (especially solar PV and onshore wind) is now cheaper than many fossil fuel alternatives in many regions.
Battery storage, demand management, hybrid systems, and grid upgrades are increasingly capable of smoothing intermittency challenges.
To assert that renewables “don’t work” is to ignore the massive deployment successes of solar, wind, and storage technologies across many nations.
Mischaracterising China and Europe
Trump claimed that China, though it manufactures wind turbines, doesn’t use them, and that Europe’s green transition is collapsing. These claims are demonstrably false: in 2024, China’s share of electricity from solar and wind was significant, even while coal use remained large. Germany continues to derive over 60% of its electricity from wind, solar, and other clean sources. By pushing this narrative, Trump attempts to delegitimise global progress in clean energy while positioning himself as the only “realist” voice.
Promoting fossil fuels under a veneer of “reliability”
Much of Trump’s discourse amounts to a sales pitch for fossil fuels: “We have oil, gas, coal, nuclear - these are abundant and reliable.” He even rebrands coal as “clean, beautiful coal.” But fossil fuels are neither clean (in terms of carbon emissions, pollution, health impacts) nor infinitely reliable (susceptible to supply shocks, geopolitical disruption, and increasing regulation). And the notion that fossil fuels can legitimately compete with the continually falling costs of renewables is becoming increasingly dubious.
Ignoring the U.S. Role: Historical Responsibility & Moral Leadership
Trump’s speech repeatedly deployed the “why should America bother, if others won’t?” logic. In effect: “Even if the U.S. reduces emissions, China will continue emitting [so why act].”
This is morally hollow and strategically shallow:
The U.S. is among the largest cumulative historical emitters; it has a responsibility not only to act, but to lead.
Every ton of carbon reduced still contributes to slowing warming (the “marginal ton” argument).
U.S. refusal to engage cedes leadership to other powers (especially China), making poorer countries more dependent on external technological actors. Indeed, by stepping back, Trump inadvertently strengthens China’s position as a global supplier of clean-technology infrastructure.
He offered no serious plan to manage the negative impacts of climate change on U.S. communities or the global commons.
The Political Signal: From Denialism to Risking Global Backsliding
A U.S. address at the UN is not just rhetoric; it’s normative, it signals to other governments, markets, investors, and civil society what counts as serious. His repudiation of climate science and renewable ambition offers encouragement (or cover) to other denialist actors.
While Trump frames green policies as a burden, in reality the global economy is pivoting strongly toward renewables, driven by cost declines, energy security, and investor appetite. Rejecting that momentum risks leaving the U.S. behind, technologically, economically, and diplomatically. Furthermore, canceling or scaling back $13 billion in green energy subsidies (as his administration is reportedly doing) is likely to hurt the nascent clean energy industries and cost jobs.
Domestic contradictions
Trump’s rhetoric also puts him at odds with trends in public opinion. A majority of Americans now regard climate change as at least an important issue, not a fringe concern. By doubling down on denial, he risks alienating moderate voters or undermining U.S. state-level actions (since many states are still pursuing clean energy goals).
A Speech of Retreat, Not Leadership
Trump’s 2025 UNGA speech on climate change was not just a repudiation of scientific consensus; it was a symbolic retreat from global leadership at a moment when the climate crisis demands urgency, cooperation, and innovation. To dismiss renewables as “jokes” or a “scam” is not boldness, it is willful ignorance and abdication.
The world is watching. Countries large and small are still forging ahead with transitions to green energy, because the alternative is unlivable. In that sense, the speech may be less a turning point than a moment of moral and political clarity, an opportunity for others to double down on the path of ambition and leave denial behind.