How Fossil Fuel Propaganda Shapes Climate Policy Today- Paris Agreement and Nationalism

 Genevieve Guenther’s book The Language of Climate Politics provides a meaningful view for understanding how language and communication is utilized to delay action regarding climate change. Although the book was written before Trump’s presidency, Guenther’s analysis is very relevant to the rhetoric we see today. She argues that fossil-fuel propaganda works not by denial of climate change, but instead by shaping certain narratives that minimize urgency, place blame, and framing climate action as harmful to the economy and costly. 

An example of the continued rhetoric is the framing of climate policy as an economic threat. Statements from Trump and his allies often highlight “energy independence” and job protection in fossil fuel industries, aligning with what Guenther calls “strategic economic framing” where climate action is portrayed as harmful to workers and innovation. However, this narrative ignores the evidence that renewable energy sectors create jobs and economic growth (see Renewable Energy and Jobs: Annual review 2025). By promoting this idea, policymakers reinforce fear and resistance instead of engaging with the full economic picture. 

Another tactic Guenther highlights is redirecting responsibility. Rather than focusing on systematic problems like fossil fuel dependence, political narratives shift the blame onto individuals or foreign nations. One delay strategy is arguing that the U.S. should not act because countries like China release more pollution. Trump even claimed that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”. Guenther explains that this kind of language undermines collective responsibility and creates an “us vs them” narrative, which discourages any real, meaningful policy change. 

Guenther also emphasizes how emotional propaganda is used to shape public perception. Climate action is framed as radical while fossil fuel expansion is presented as necessary and practical. Actions to roll back environmental regulations are often described as cutting unnecessary rules, which makes deregulation sound beneficial, not risky. This emotional contrast influences how people interpret policies before even examining the facts. Public opinion data from the Yale Climate Opinion Maps shows that beliefs about climate change vary across the U.S. demonstrating how political messaging shapes understanding at a local level. 

The Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a clear example of Guenther’s argument in action. When announcing the decision for the first time in 2015, Trump framed it as a move to protect American jobs, saying, “The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense.  They don’t put America first.  I do, and I always will”, which reflects Guenther’s description of a deliberate reframing strategy. Trump turned a global environmental agreement into a question of nationalism and economic survival. By emphasizing short-term economic issues and portraying international cooperation as a threat, the administration had shifted attention away from the urgency of climate change. The withdrawal itself had real consequences: weakening international cooperation and signaling reduced commitment from the U.S. to emission reduction.