The White House’s ongoing initiative to shield the fossil fuel industry from accountability has reached an alarming new stage, exemplified by the suggested removal of obligatory carbon emission reporting. An examination of the broader business and policy contexts reveals that this move may undermine not only public health and safety but also jeopardize the interests of the very companies the proposal aims to support.
On September 12, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin put forth a rule intending to do away with carbon emissions measurement and reporting requirements for most U.S. industries, including fossil fuel producers and refiners. This proposal follows several prior efforts by Administrator Zeldin to alleviate climate accountability for fossil fuel interests, including his effort to withdraw the EPA’s 2009 determination that global-warming emissions are detrimental and necessitate regulatory oversight, despite extensive scientific evidence linking these emissions to significant health threats.
The EPA’s framework for assessing the quantity of climate-altering emissions generated by companies is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Established by Congress in 2008, GHGRP enjoyed bipartisan support, and many have recognized the importance of the data it generates. Scientists rely on GHGRP data to monitor emission trends and identify pollution hot spots, critical for guiding policymakers and communities facing high pollutant exposures. By systematically measuring emissions, companies can benchmark their numbers against their competitors and communicate their climate impacts to investors and the public.
Initially, when the EPA announced its plan to reassess GHGRP months ago, there were indications that some oil and gas facilities would still be obliged to report emissions. Given that fossil fuel combustion accounts for approximately 75 percent of global carbon emissions, the finalized proposal released in September would, however, entirely abolish reporting requirements for fossil gas distribution entities and defer reporting for other oil and gas facilities until 2034.
No reporting, no deal
The administration evidently views the rollback of GHGRP as integral to boosting U.S. oil and gas production. The U.S. exports a significantly larger volume of gas than coal, with aspirations to expand exports to regions like the European Union (EU). This was made evident during a recent energy showcase in Europe, where Energy Secretary Chris Wright urged leaders to relax environmental regulations while purchasing more U.S. fossil fuels.
Yet, eliminating the program could complicate these ambitions. GHGRP data serves as a qualification for companies to sell their oil and gas to regions with stringent carbon emission disclosure requirements, like the EU. Although the EU is eager to procure vast quantities of U.S. gas following some diplomatic pressure from the Trump administration, it will mandate that exporters disclose methane emissions associated with fossil gas starting in 2027, with the aim of curbing emissions by 2030. Companies now likely will find it necessary to engage a third party to handle emissions accounting, according to industry experts.
The lack of foresight in dismantling GHGRP mirrors the administration’s previous decisions to discontinue various regulations that required corporations to analyze and report climate-related financial risks. Numerous countries that the U.S. engages with have established such regulations, creating a disadvantage for American businesses. According to the Climate Policy Monitor, a project based at the University of Oxford that tracks global climate policies, at least nine countries and regions—including Brazil, China, South Korea, and the EU—mandate disclosures regarding the physical risks climate change poses to businesses. Furthermore, public procurement contracts increasingly incorporate sustainability requirements, indicating that significant public spending is being redirected toward products and suppliers that meet national climate goals, as noted in the Monitor’s 2024 report.
Research illustrates that accounting and disclosure initiatives like GHGRP effectively alter corporate behavior. A study indicated that emissions at facilities decreased by nearly 8 percent within two years of reporting under the program, driven by competitiveness and fears regarding potential regulations. Mandating companies to quantify and disclose externalities that induce risks, such as global warming emissions, yields additional advantages for those businesses.
A review from Columbia University on mandatory, quantitative, and standardized disclosures found they could foster “increased market share for a corporation that privately anticipates the economic consequences of disclosure, benchmarks its own performance relative to its competitors, and responds to public signals from investors, consumers, and regulators.” As the saying goes, you can’t manage what you can’t measure.
Stopping reporting won’t stop global warming
The urgency for companies to disclose emissions and climate-related risks has never been greater. Global warming emissions persist in rising, notwithstanding the avalanche of voluntary carbon-reduction commitments that financial institutions and businesses have made following pressure from shareholders and consumers. While voluntary goal-setting was never meant to be a permanent answer to climate change, it often laid the groundwork for enduring regulations that encouraged many firms to participate.
In the meantime, the ramifications of climate change continue to mount. The global insurance provider Swiss Re reported that damages from natural disasters, including hurricanes Milton and Helene, amounted to $318 billion in 2024 alone, with projections for a 6 percent annual increase. Scientific evidence confirms that climate change exacerbates the frequency and severity of such catastrophes, with the field of attribution science becoming increasingly adept at linking climate impacts and extreme events to specific companies’ emissions.
<pThrough the Carbon Majors database, which tracks carbon emissions from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, UCS reveals that only 122 fossil fuel and cement companies have contributed to 94% of industrial carbon dioxide emissions since 1959. Researchers use the Carbon Majors database to quantify the contributions of these firms to sea-level rise, areas affected by wildfires, and other climate-induced damages. Such investigations can inform various lawsuits aiming to hold fossil fuel companies accountable—lawsuits that some policymakers are attempting to obstruct by advocating for liability protections.
The tragedy of energy transition delay
The Trump Administration’s anti-sustainability efforts have prompted numerous companies to withdraw from their voluntary commitments, causing organizations like the Net Zero Banking Alliance to suspend their operations. This troubling trend has driven 54 entities (including the Union of Concerned Scientists) to urge leaders of central banks and financial regulators to establish mandatory emissions reporting requirements and climate transition strategies that prioritize renewable financing over fossil fuels.
This movement was galvanized by the tenth anniversary of a speech by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during his tenure as governor of the Bank of England. In his address, titled “Tragedy of the Horizon,” he warned that the implications of climate change extend beyond the usual political, business, and economic cycles.
“An army of actuaries isn’t required to tell us that the dire consequences of climate change will reverberate past the typical planning horizons of most actors, imposing burdens on future generations that current stakeholders have little incentive to address,” Carney remarked. Nevertheless, mandating corporations to disclose their emissions and associated risks can create that needed incentive. “By managing what we measure, we can transcend the Tragedy of the Horizon,” he concluded.
Carney stressed the importance of initiating the energy transition promptly and ensuring it follows a predictable trajectory to mitigate risks to financial stability. Climate risk affects not only the financial system but decisions within that system also impact climate risk. By postponing the energy transition, the Trump Administration is intensifying climate-related disasters while simultaneously disrupting market dynamics and harming the economy. Ultimately, this choice is detrimental to corporate profitability and catastrophic for billions worldwide who will continue to face increasing floods, fires, and heatwaves with every rise in global temperatures.
