The 2025 CPAC event gathered conservative leaders expressing strong opposition to climate policies. Donald Trump and other speakers criticized environmental agreements and advocated for deregulating fossil fuels. Key topics included energy dominance and the rejection of climate initiatives, portraying a unified conservative front against climate change measures.
On February 2025, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) convened near Washington, D.C., drawing conservative leaders unified in their opposition to climate initiatives. Key figures included former President Donald Trump, who, amidst his famous “USA, USA” chants, vociferously criticized the Paris Agreement and termed the Green New Deal a “disaster”. Trump asserted that efforts to address climate change represent a hoax that undermines the nation’s economy.
In a disorganized speech lacking factual coherence, Trump dismissed President Biden’s pollution standards, inaccurately claiming a nonexistent electric car mandate. His comments on hydrogen cars were equally misleading, suggesting they pose dangerous risks with no basis in evidence. The overall tone of CPAC this year reflected a shift from previous scientific discussions on climate to a purely anti-climate rhetoric devoid of substantial critique or policy alternatives.
Former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss echoed similar sentiments, lamenting her inability to repeal a fracking ban during her brief tenure. She criticized net-zero policies that she claimed harmed the UK’s energy sector and called for a sweeping repeal of numerous laws, including those related to climate change. Truss emphasized a desire to dismantle what she termed the “deep state” and restore parliamentary sovereignty.
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright reinforced Trump’s energy agenda at CPAC, promising deregulation to enhance fossil fuel production. He accentuated the need to accelerate energy extraction amid the increasing energy demands of artificial intelligence technologies. The burgeoning competition with China in AI was a focal point in his remarks, with an assertion that American innovation in this realm must not fall behind.
Alaskan Governor Mike Dunleavy expressed ambitions for future political roles, suggesting that Trump views Alaska as a key solution to national energy challenges. His campaign proposals included a lucrative liquefied natural gas pipeline, assiduously linked to potential partnerships with Asian markets. Dunleavy characterized Trump’s support as pivotal for Alaskan energy development.
Trump’s order to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum directed an exploration of public lands for energy resources, with ambitions to reduce trade deficits through additional energy production. Burgum disclosed plans to promote policies aimed at achieving energy dominance, including an initiative to streamline regulatory processes for the extraction and distribution of energy.
In a notable contrast to previous years, CPAC featured minimal representation of climate advocacy groups, with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) as the only notable presence in the exhibit area. CFACT and its representatives argued for alternative perspectives on climate change, asserting that the science is not settled. Their initiatives on college campuses aim to address perceived biases against conservative viewpoints.
Overall, CPAC 2025 decidedly reinforced a coherent theme against climate policies, with influential leaders from various domains celebrating a rollback of environmental protections and an unabashed embrace of fossil fuel energy.
CPAC 2025 represents a significant consolidation of conservative forces against climate policy, characterized by fervent speeches and a lack of scientific discourse. Prominent figures like Donald Trump and Liz Truss highlighted calls for energy deregulation and the dismantling of climate protections, mirroring a broader agenda to prioritize fossil fuel interests over environmental considerations. The event signaled a troubling trend towards increased climate denial within mainstream politics, with far-reaching implications for future environmental strategies.
Original Source: whowhatwhy.org
