Just in case you thought the age of Trump couldn’t become any more irrationally regressive…

The New York Times reported the following on July 29:

• Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Tuesday the Trump administration would revoke the scientific determination that underpins the government’s legal authority to combat climate change.
• Speaking at a truck dealership in Indianapolis, Mr. Zeldin said the E.P.A. planned to rescind the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which concluded that planet-warming greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. The Obama and Biden administrations used that determination to set strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants and other industrial sources of pollution.
• …Without the endangerment finding, the E.P.A. would be left with no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that are accumulating in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.
• The proposal is President Trump’s most consequential step yet to derail federal climate efforts. It marks a notable shift in the administration’s position from one that had downplayed the threat of global warming to one that essentially flatly denies the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.
• It would not only reverse current regulations, but, if the move is upheld in court, it could make it significantly harder for future administrations to rein in climate pollution from the burning of coal, oil and gas.
• …In recent weeks, the Trump administration has also moved to scrap restrictions on pollution from power plants, halt key measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and delay approvals of wind and solar energy projects on federal lands.

The article contains a speculation that the proposed repeal will ultimately be struck down in court, but even if that’s so, it’s clear that a Trump-era E.P.A. will be worse than useless. It’s hard for me at least to understand why skepticism regarding climate change need necessarily tilt into outright hostility toward diversifying energy sources; the Times also reported that the administration is imposing additional red tape on wind and solar projects, in harsh contrast to its deregulatory enthusiasm elsewhere. And as we’ve covered before, this is accompanied by a seriously eroding landscape for sustainable investing. An article in The Atlantic, titled How the Right Is Waging War on Climate-Conscious Investing, recently surveyed the scene; almost any randomly-chosen paragraphs would make the point, but here are a few:

• …many high-profile firms (have) exited the Climate Action 100+ initiative. Coalitions of financial institutions that once committed to sustainable investing have collapsed. Several U.S. banks—including JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—withdrew from an influential bankers’ climate coalition, citing legal risk and political pressure. BlackRock and Vanguard pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, leading that group to halt operations.
• …U.S. investment funds specializing in climate experienced net inflows of $70 billion in 2021—but by 2023, the tide had reversed, with money flowing out of the funds faster than it was coming in. Last year, net outflows amounted to $19.6 billion, with the trend continuing into the first quarter of 2025, according to Morningstar Analytics. Proxy initiatives from shareholders interested in sustainable investing have also declined, another casualty of the war against ESG.

The article nevertheless ends on a faintly hopeful note, hoping for a time “when the political winds shift once more.” In a speech around the same time, ISSB Chair Emmanuel Faber commented:

• Our responsibility in the next several years will now be to support the jurisdictions, the investors, the companies and the assurance profession to ensure that the language of ISSB Standards is properly used. And that it finally can be decision-useful and enable capital allocation decisions by the capital markets, who will make better decisions with that language…
• …The other side of the shared responsibility is you—all of you, jurisdictions, regulators, stock exchanges, investors, companies, the assurance profession. This is your language now. The growth of the ISSB has been horizontal over the last three years, growing and growing from one jurisdiction to another across the world. But now what needs to happen is vertical growth in each of the jurisdictions. How do you start the journey that will gradually capture more capital, more sectors, banks, listed companies, private capital? Each of you will go in the right direction at the right speed. But that vertical growth is what will ultimately make the impact that we are all seeking together. This is your first responsibility.
• Your second priority is to protect the global baseline of ISSB Standards. This common language that 40 jurisdictions have decided to use is a treasure. It’s a common good. We are in a world where there might be other interests, and there are a lot of other things that happen that are not about language, about dialogue or about building together. I feel privileged to be part of an adventure that is building on multilateralism with leaders like those that are in this room and beyond. Our shared responsibility is to protect and grow that language together.

Leaving aside previous commentary on whether the repeated use of the term “language” is well-judged, Faber’s lightweight reference to “other interests” and “other things that happen” hardly seems commensurate with the current scale of political and other hostility. It’s understandable that his speech tries to convey optimism and conviviality, but it’s absurd to say that each party with a stake in sustainability reporting will necessarily “go in the right direction at the right speed.” One appreciates the pitfalls of appearing “political”, but at the very least, Faber’s and the ISSB’s sense of shared responsibility might benefit from greater urgency, and a strategically-applied righteous anger at how others fail to grasp their share…

The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.