II. Introduction

Environmental policy, or climate change policy, refers to measures taken by the government to address the environment and, more specifically, the impact that man-made activities have on the environment. The effectiveness of these policies can be assessed based on their success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy adoption, and mitigating climate-related risks. 

The United States has a complicated history with climate change mitigation, with policies and attitudes towards climate change varying drastically depending on the administration in power. As President Trump’s second term begins, the country approaches a dramatically different landscape with substantial implications for the climate in 2025. In his first week back in office, President Trump issued a series of executive orders reversing many climate-focused initiatives implemented by the Biden administration. Like he first did in 2017, President Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement ( Pullins, 2025), an international accord created to counteract the effects of climate change on a global scale. In addition to this, President Trump has also promised to decrease both regulations and taxes for fossil fuel companies. Backing out of international climate action while increasing reliance on fossil fuels puts the U.S. behind and threatens the longevity and sustainability of our climate and safety. This shift raises the question: What does sustainability look like for environmental justice movements in the midst of an administration adamant on dismantling green efforts in the name of profit? To that question, Denmark can offer many answers. By pairing large development goals with innovative green investments, Denmark has created a legal framework holding corporations accountable. Denmark’s Climate Law incentivizes nearly 100 municipalities to use greener energy. A closer look into Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital, shows practical ways to reach carbon-neutral goals. From switching power systems to strictly biomass, wind, and solar energy and investing in public transportation. Copenhagen has also taken the lead in the sustainable development space, their carbon capture and storage (CSS) technology-- which completely transforms the way cities manage waste. Copenhagen has cut its emissions nearly in half since 2005, mainly by shifting from fossil fuels to generate heat and electricity (C40, 2020). The United States has a lot to learn from nations like Denmark and action taken at the federal level is crucial in combating the climate crisis. 

lII. Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gases are compounds that trap heat in the atmosphere, preventing the Earth’s temperatures from becoming uninhabitable and dropping to as low as -18 ˚C (National Grid, 2023). While these gases naturally regulate the planet’s climate, human activities—such as infrastructure development, vehicles, agriculture, and trash—have caused dramatic increases in the release of greenhouse gases, which, in turn, cause global warming and climate change (Nature, 2024). According to the United States Department of Transportation, human activities play a large role in the increased levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. 

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is released into the atmosphere when solid waste, wood products, and fossil fuels are burned. Oil, natural gas, and coal account for most of the world’s fossil fuel emissions burned in the past 20 to 30 years (Begon, 2014). Methane (CH₄) is emitted through the production and transportation of coal, natural gas, and oil. Additionally, large amounts of methane are released from the decomposition of organic waste in solid waste landfills and livestock farming (Department of Transportation, 2016). Notably, cattle digestion (like cow farts and burps) generate 15% of methane emissions around the world annually (Kwok, 2023). Nitrous oxide (N₂O), the most harmful greenhouse gas, is released primarily from agricultural and industrial activities. Other greenhouse gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), come from air conditioning and foam production. While the majority of greenhouse gasses occur naturally, human activity has led to a dangerously high level of gasses being released into the atmosphere, accelerating global temperatures and driving Earth to its warmest recorded temperatures. 

In the late 20th century, American ecologist Garrett Hardin coined the term “tragedy of the commons”, defining the phenomena where “free” shared environmental resources are overused, exploited, and eventually depleted due to unregulated human exploitation (Kwok, 2023). This concept showcases the importance of environmental policy that protects natural resources and reduces overexploitation. The United Nations Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, represents a landmark international effort to combat the tragedy of the commons—and climate change—worldwide. Under this accord, 196 nations committed to fighting against global warming by limiting the global temperature rise to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels(Stallard, 2025). However, with the current pace of greenhouse gas emissions and insufficient efforts to reduce them, the goals set by the accord are becoming increasingly challenging to achieve. As the impacts of climate change intensify, including rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss, the urgency to implement drastic measures grows more pressing. Without immediate and concerted action on a global scale to drastically reduce emissions and transition to renewable energy sources, the world risks surpassing dangerous temperatures, making it too late to prevent catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the planet and future generations.

Though Denmark is significantly smaller than the United States, by juxtaposing the United States with Denmark—the greenest country in the world—this analysis seeks to pinpoint ways the United States can reimagine and enact climate reform. The issue of climate change is drawing more democratic engagement each year as people witness dramatic weather changes, pollution’s toll on health, and the growing number of climate refugees. How can governments envision a sustainable green economy and legal framework that doesn’t further energy poverty but betters the environment and everyone a part of it? 

rawing more democratic engagement each year as people witness dramatic weather changes, pollution’s toll on health, and the growing number of climate refugees. How can governments envision a sustainable green economy and legal framework that doesn’t further energy poverty but betters the environment and everyone a part of it?

IV. Denmark: Setting a National Example on Climate Law

Background on Denmark

Denmark, a Northern European country established in 800 AD, has a population of 5.989 million people. Its temperate climate consists of sandy coasts and flat lands and is also home to the Jutland Peninsula and hundreds of islands in the North Sea (Linton, 2024). The country adheres to a Parliamentary Democracy system and places a large emphasis on social equality and welfare. Denmark’s King Frederik X holds no political power, and the position is mainly ceremonial; rather, the country is led by a Prime Minister. Within the Parliament are three political parties: the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and the Moderates. The current Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, is a part of the Social Democratic Party.

Denmark, in general, is one of the safest countries to live in, and there’s no doubt that its walkability and social policies play a role in its capital being regarded as the happiest city in the world (Wenande). Crime rates and corruption throughout Denmark are very low compared to other countries. Like other European countries, universal healthcare is free to citizens, which significantly aids communities. Denmark is incredibly walkable yet offers various modes of public transportation, aiding nearly half of the population that commutes on foot to work. In terms of political mood, it's the volition of the people that led to the transformative policies present today. In January 2019, a petition surfaced pushing for a climate law that would bring Denmark up to the standards of the Paris Agreement. In one week, it had gained 50,000 signatures. This petition, continued protests around Denmark, and a larger global movement led climate change to be a top election issue. The climate ambition among the people eventually resounded with leaders, and the Climate Law was eventually passed with cross-party support (Timperley, 2020). In fact, “Eight of the 10 parties in the Danish parliament – who together make up around 95% of seats – ultimately voted for the law (members from two small parties voted against it)” (Timperley, 2020). 

There’s a heavy involvement of intergovernmental relations behind Denmark’s powerful climate policies. Environmental legislation is primarily administered by the Danish national government, such as the Prime Minister, Minister for Climate, Energy, and Utilities, and the Minister for Tax. Other governmental authorities, such as the Danish Energy Agency, also administer some parts of the environmental legislation. As a part of the new Climate Law, the Danish Council on Climate Change was born. It consists of one chair and eight other members. The Danish Council on Climate Change elects one candidate for each vacant post, who is subsequently appointed by the Minister for Climate, Energy, and Utilities. The Danish Council on Climate Change is composed of experts with broad expertise and a high level of climate-relevant academic knowledge relating to energy, buildings, transport, agriculture, environment, nature, economics, climate science research, and behavioral research of relevance to the climate field (DMC, 2020). Aside from the councils and agencies at the top, local leaders of municipalities also play a large role in the fight against climate change as they all are responsible for developing a climate plan for their region.

V. Denmark’s Call to Action

Rising 1.5°C since the 1870s, Denmark’s average annual temperature has increased more quickly than the global average and is projected to continue climbing until the end of the century (Denmark EPA, 2020). Denmark’s annual precipitation has increased by roughly 20% since the 1870s, making wet regions wetter, and climate projections indicate a further increase over the century. Scientists warned that intense precipitation events could raise the risk of floods and aggravate the impacts on the energy system.

Net GHG emissions in Denmark in 2018 amounted to 57.9 million tonnes of CO2e, which constitutes about 1.6% of the total net emissions of the EU. Since 2005, the country has accomplished a 23% reduction in net emissions, exceeding the EU's achievement of 16.2%. According to the Danish government, this has been mainly due to energy sector developments, and in particular, the decrease in the carbon intensity of the energy mix.

Figure 1: Total LULUCF and net greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions 

Source: Simões, Henrique Morgado, and Gema Andreo. “Climate action in Denmark.” European Parliament, February 2021, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/679106/EPRS_BRI(2021)679106_EN.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2024.

As shown in Figure 1, Net GHG emissions in Denmark in 2018 amounted to 57.9 million tonnes of CO2e, which constitutes about 1.6% of the total net emissions of the EU. Since 2005, the country has accomplished a 23% reduction in net emissions, exceeding the EU's achievement of 16.2%. However, more must be done to meet the Paris Accord standards. (Simões, 2021) As of 2019, each Danish citizen emitted an average of 8.2 tonnes of CO2e, which is substantially lower than the carbon footprint of people around the world. 

On the federal level, Denmark is boldly leading the entire country toward a green economy and net-zero emissions.  In 2020, Denmark passed an ambitious and groundbreaking Climate Act into law. The Climate Act ensures that Denmark works to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent in 2030 compared to 1990 levels and towards net zero by 2050 (Timperley, 2019). According to the Denmark Environmental Protection Agency, the law is broken into multiple components. Firstly, working with multilateral organizations and civil society for ambitious efforts on climate adaptation, resilience, and sustainable development. Investing in green energy markets instead of fossil fuels is the second pillar, which is pivotal in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Placing value on equity, Denmark also prioritizes the expansion of climate finance in even the poorest and most fragile communities. Lastly, Denmark seeks to inspire climate action across the globe by working with the private sector to promote Danish solutions internationally. These three pillars are inscribed into the Climate Action Law. The Climate Act also has a mechanism put into place to set milestone targets. Every five years, the government must set a legally binding target with a ten-year perspective.

“Denmark will soon become the first country in the world where every municipality has a climate action plan to reduce emissions and help keep global heating at safe levels. The impact of this collective effort has huge potential – Danish municipalities aim to cut 76% of Denmark’s total emissions by 2030, compared to 1990” (C40, 2023). Denmark has a total of five states that are further divided into 98 municipalities. Since the passing of the 2020 Climate Law, 95% of Danish municipalities have followed suit and set goals to reduce their emissions by 70% or more by 2030 (C40, 2023). This coordinated climate action planning is attributed to DK2020, a project uniting Danish mayors and partners. Altogether the Local Government of Denmark, five Danish regions, and the Danish philanthropic association Realdania established DK2020 in 2019. DK2020 served as a green think tank. It’s working together to unite Denmark’s numerous municipalities to create ambitious climate action plans. Currently, 95 out of 98 Danish municipalities have climate action plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. By the end of 2024, all 98 municipalities across the five Danish regions are expected to have these plans in place or in development. Following a uniform Climate Action Planning Framework, the robust plans put forth by local leaders are not only clear but also feasible. The DK2020 project has strengthened collaboration across municipal departments and created a shared platform where local leaders can collaborate, seek support, and share ideas. 

Transitioning to a sustainable green economy requires holding companies and private industries accountable. Denmark’s corporate carbon tax is a pivotal agreement made in 2022 by Danish lawmakers. Aware that reaching the ambitious 2030 target of cutting greenhouse emissions by 70%,  lawmakers agreed that pressure would need to be put on the nation’s largest companies. Tax Minister Jeppe Bruus said, “The tax is the biggest single contribution so far to cut emissions by 2030” (Jacobsen, 2022). The total CO2 levy will be 1,125 Danish crowns ($159) per tonne by 2030 for companies subject to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and will consist of a 375 crowns fee on top of the projected 2030 price of EU carbon permits of 750 crowns (Jacobsen, 2022). 

Incentivizing citizens to transition to more eco-friendly behaviors is also vital in the journey toward net-zero emissions. Denmark does this by investing in public transportation and charging a tax on gas. Denmark was actually one of the first countries to introduce a carbon tax in 1992 (Batini, 2020). The tax is designed to encourage more citizens to minimize individual car usage and rely more on the widely available metro system. The tax on road fuel is $0.74 per liter, which is about $320 per ton of CO2. Recognizing that a complete transition to public transportation is unrealistic, Denmark promotes the use of electric vehicles through an additional tax system on car registration. Nicoletta Batini, an Italian economist from the University of Oxford, analyzed a series of Denmark’s policies in her published research: “Climate Mitigation Policy in Denmark: A Prototype for Other Countries”. Batini found that ICE vehicles ( cars with an internal combustion engine), “... are subject to taxes of 85 percent for car values up to $32,000 and 150 percent on values above that. For gasoline cars, the registration tax is reduced by $640 for each km/liter below 20 km/liter and increased by $960 for each km/liter above 20 km/liter. Electric vehicles up to $63,500 are exempt from registration fees” ( Batini, 2020). With the new Metro line, nearly all residents are within less than half a mile of a station. Bicycle paths are wide and clear on even the busiest routes for residents to commute.

The Denmark Climate Law is a commendable step taken by the Danish federal leaders, and a closer look at the work being done on the local level shows the same commitment to creativity and ambitious methods to bettering the environment. Copenhagen, the nation’s capital and often referred to as its own region of Denmark, is located near the Zealand region. Like the rest of the nation, the rains becoming heavier and the rising sea levels spurred action. In the most vulnerable neighborhoods, the city is creating new parks and ponds for water to collect before it can drain out. By the harbor are new and larger dikes, and some have called for a new region to be developed to block storm surges in the northeast. 

Copenhagen announced its plan to become the world’s first carbon-neutral city by 2025 and garnered international recognition in 2012 ( Christiansen, 2022). The city planned to do this by switching its power and district heating system to biomass, wind, and solar. Undergoing renovations to make buildings energy efficient and further improving public transportation. While a majority of these plans were carried out over the last decade, Copenhagen’s innovative goal of installing carbon capture and storage (CSS) technology at the local waste-to-energy plant led to a spiral of negotiations to bring it to life. Today, one can venture around the capital and see Amager Bakke, a new incarceration plant designed to convert waste to electricity and heating. In 2009, five municipalities of the 40-year-old Amager incarceration plant sought to build a new incinerator with a capacity of 560,00 tonnes per year. The new incinerator was promised to produce 20% more heat and electricity per tonne of waste incinerated than the old one—it was also said to emit less smoke and reduce air pollution by more than 50% (Madsen, 2019). However, the municipality of Copenhagen refused to provide a loan guarantee of €534 million to the Amager Bakke incinerator project due to concerns that a large incinerator would pose safety issues and signal to citizens that burning materials of such magnitude was acceptable. The municipality preferred a plant with a smaller capacity that focused more on recycling and reuse. Despite the disapproval, a series of secret negotiations involving the former Finance Minister Bjarne Corydon and the company supplying the furnace Babcock and Wilcox led to a change in the city council’s decision (Madsen, 2019). 

The new incineration plant began operation in 2017 and has had to make several modifications. The large size was proven unnecessary early on, and the agreement was amended to allow imported trash to make up for the deficit. The forecasted 480,000 tonnes of waste fell short of the actual 300,000 tonnes of waste produced annually. To prevent the incarceration plant, which has a maximum capacity of 560,000 tonnes, from running empty, trash was imported from the British islands (Wittrup, 2016). Since its inception, there has been a series of technical errors and debates on its effectiveness in reducing pollution and carbon emissions.

VI. Evaluating Denmark’s Climate Action Policies

This paper will analyze the nation’s following policies and their efficiency in the following areas: effectiveness, equity, and political feasibility. 

Results

Historically, Denmark has always shown progress in reducing overall emissions.  In 2018, fossil fuel CO2 emissions were about half of the peak emissions in 1996 (Batini, 2020). The Business-as-Usual (BAU) term is used as a baseline and refers to the emissions profile for an area prior to any intervention, this baseline provides a benchmark to measure the impact of various government actions on the environment. Denmark’s BAU CO2 emissions in 2030 are lower in Denmark than in other EU countries, while per capita emissions are slightly lower than the EU average (Batini, 2020). This estimate shows that Denmark’s proposed methods of reducing carbon emissions will be effective, at least in the short term. 

The Climate Law is a piece of landmark legislation for the country of Denmark, pushing the 98 municipalities in a direction towards cleaner energy and zero emissions. Hand in hand with the DK2020 project, leaders of these municipalities have collaborated closely with residents, businesses, and other local stakeholders. Setting clear goals at the federal level and releasing autonomy to municipal leaders enables local citizens to also get involved in the climate decisions happening in their region; this furthers equity by ensuring everyone has a voice at the table. Between the policies and the national dialogue, Denmark has gotten its message across that everyone has a responsibility to solve the climate crisis. If all the municipal climate action plans are implemented, local leaders could reduce emissions by 73% by 2030- just a bit over the national target (C40, 2020). It is important to note that the Climate Law in Denmark was adopted less than four years ago, making it difficult to gauge the extent to which the policy has reduced carbon emissions. Quantifying the overall reduction in emissions in Denmark and across each municipality could take up to three to six more years as the 2030 target nears. Denmark has generally had lower emissions, so the recent declines in greenhouse gasses can not 100% be attributed to the laws or carbon taxes put in place recently. Nevertheless, the prompt renovations to renewable energy across the nation have undoubtedly reduced the carbon footprint among Danish residents. 

Copenhagen has already cut its emissions by 42 percent from 2005 levels, mainly by moving away from fossil fuels to generate heat and electricity. The wind turbines and the large incinerator generate the city’s electricity. However, there has been controversy regarding the effectiveness of the ARC/ Amager Bakke incinerator. The hundreds of trucks bringing trash to the furnace to be burned still have a carbon footprint. The imported waste from Britain is dry paper, plastic, and cardboard, between 15-40% plastic, all of which are recyclable. This could potentially become a larger problem as crude oil is a material in raw plastics; essentially, burning these plastics is like burning fossil carbon, which has a higher carbon emission rate( Madsen, 2019). The chief engineer, Peter Blinksbjerg, pointed out that instead of going into a landfill, “the rubbish of modern life is transformed into something useful: heat for the city’s long, cold winters” (Sengupta, 2019). Associate Professor Brian Vad Mathiesen from Aalborg University suggests heat pumps, geothermal, and solar heat would be a better way to create heat and energy (Madsen, 2019). Once the 30-year loan is up, Danish taxpayers will be left to finance the incinerator. 

 For every unit of fossil fuels the incinerator consumes, Copenhagen intends to sell units of renewable energy. Revenue being rerouted has aided Denmark’s green renovations across the country. “The government has allocated $4.6 billion for green renovations of public housing from 2021–26 and $0.17 billion for basic research into critical technologies (e.g., battery storage for intermittent renewable power). Estimated infrastructure costs for developing EV charging stations are relatively small, under $1 billion” (Batini, 2020). When made accessible, renewable energy significantly helps low-income communities. Those below the poverty line are often exposed at higher rates to harmful pollutants in the air due to the proximity of their residence to power plants and factories. These pose a variety of consequences on their health and an additional monetary cost when factoring in the costs of hospital visits. Renewable energy sources are much cleaner and eliminate harmful pollutants, making communities safer and healthier. “Energy poverty,” as defined by the World Economic Forum, is the lack of access to sustainable modern energy services and products. There was a one-time subsidy offered to low-income residents to help them balance the rising energy costs, as well as multiple schemes to support homeowners financially affected by the development of renewable energy plants. Moving forward, a clear and sustainable fund should be put in place to support residents' transition to renewable energy. 

Carbon taxes adjust the prices of products to reflect their cost in carbon emissions and redirect new investment into cleaner technologies, all while benefiting the environment. The corporate carbon tax was enacted about two years ago, and while there hasn’t been research quantifying the impact of this policy, placing pressure on corporations to be more conscious of their carbon footprint will surely reduce emissions across the country. The effectiveness of road fuel taxes is still up for debate. Italian economist Nicoletta Bantini argues that aggressive carbon pricing by itself falls well short of achieving Denmark’s emission reduction target. From the estimated data provided in the figure below, she says, “Even a $100 per ton carbon price in 2030 reduces emissions 19 percent below BAU levels, less than half of the needed reduction” (Batini, 2020). 

‍Figure 2a: Total U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.   Source: EPA Environmental Protection Agency. “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA.” Environmental Protection Agency, 11 April 2024, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed 14 May 2024.‍

Convincing lawmakers to increase the road fuel tax to $200 is very unlikely. With such low political feasibility, focusing more on enhancing public transportation and electrical vehicle charging stations is crucial.  Around 43% of Copenhageners commute to work and school by bike (Madsen, 2019). This number is only projected to increase with the new Metro line being built between regions. 

Many people in Denmark have rallied around the issue of climate change. Citizens have shown immense regard for clear and ambitious policies that cut down emissions and invest in cleaner forms of energy. The Climate Law, carbon tax, and various climate action plans indicate a clear path forward towards a healthier environment.

VII. United States: The Fight for Climate Mitigation

United States Call to Action

As of today, the United States is currently the second-highest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. The population size is 334,914,895, according to the U.S. census, and the average carbon footprint for a person in the United States is 16 tons (Nature Conservancy). While China took first place recently, the United States has produced more than 400 billion metric tons of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions since 1750. The pollution coming from landfills also poses a major issue, as the U.S. produces 268 million tons of waste, 140 million of which goes into landfills each year (Mcdonald, 2023). 

Figure 2b: Total U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.   Source: EPA Environmental Protection Agency. “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA.” Environmental Protection Agency, 11 April 2024, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed 14 May 2024.

‍

The three largest causes of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are electricity, transportation, and heat. As pictured in Figure 2b, residential and commercial is the largest category because buildings use 75% of the electricity generated in the US (e.g., for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, appliances, and plug loads) (Shoemaker, 2023). Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Petroleum-based fuel is used for nearly every form of transportation, resulting in direct emissions. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “The transportation sector is the largest source of direct greenhouse gas emissions and second largest source when indirect emissions from electricity end-use are allocated across sectors” (EPA, 2022). 

The issue of climate change is heavily politicized in the United States, making it increasingly difficult for lawmakers to pass climate mitigation solutions. On the federal level, the majority of climate action in the U.S. has failed to leave the realm of conversation. Despite it being a recurring issue on the campaign trail and an issue on the minds of many voters (Carman, 2024), very few substantial policies have actually been implemented. Since the head figure of the American government is the president, climate action on the federal level relies primarily on the attitude of the president. This is why environmental policies change irregularly throughout different presidencies. One of America’s first examples of environmental policy was the Rivers and Harbor Act in 1899, which aimed to protect bodies of water in the midst of construction. In 1979, the First World Climate Conference was held. Less than a decade later, the United Nations formed a panel on climate change and formed an international treaty to encourage 37 industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (Childress, 2012). In 2005, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect without Russia's or the United States’ support. In 2011, the Republican Majority eliminated the House Committee on Global Warming (Childress, 2012). Ultimately, the constant interplay among party politics influences climate change policies at the federal level. 

In 2010, the Obama Administration brokered an agreement among 13 auto manufacturers, the State of California, the United Auto Workers union, and other interested parties for GHG emission standards for automobiles and light trucks. Democrats in Congress attempted to pass a cap and trade bill, but it never made it through the House. In his State of the Union address, speaking of the “ravages of climate change”, Obama called for a cap on carbon pollution that would limit the level of carbon emissions that could be produced. Companies that exceeded the cap could lease additional credits from companies that produce less than the allotted amount, creating a financial incentive to reduce emissions (Plumber, 2014). This didn’t gain much traction, and the progress made by the Obama Administration would quickly be reversed by Trump’s administration in 2016.  

The Biden-Harris Administration made history with one of the most progressive climate agendas in Presidential history. Throughout his campaign, President Biden vowed to address global warming amidst great pushback from Congress, and two major pieces of legislation were signed: The Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act.  The Inflation Reduction Act aims to combat the steady increase in prices across various sectors by implementing targeted measures to stabilize the economy. Passed in August 2022, The Inflation Reduction Act invests,  “$350 million for grants, technical assistance, and tools, including carbon labeling, to help manufacturers, institutional buyers, real estate developers, builders, and others measure, report and substantially lower the levels of embodied carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions”. This is the country’s largest investment towards reducing carbon emissions in U.S. history. Supporting productive innovations with benefits to the economy and the climate supports infrastructure that lowers economic reliance on fossil fuels. 

On the other hand, the Chips and Science Act is designed to advance technological innovation and scientific research, particularly in the field of semiconductor manufacturing and renewable energy. By allocating funding toward the development of more efficient and environmentally friendly semiconductor technologies, such as silicon carbide and gallium nitride, the Act aims to reduce the carbon footprint associated with electronics production. The Department of Energy is developing a plan to reduce the energy use of microelectronics chips, circuits, architecture, and software by 1000 times in the next 20 years (Bui, 2023). Moreover, by investing in research and development initiatives focused on renewable energy sources like solar and wind power, the Chips and Science Act promotes the transition toward a low-carbon economy. Through these concerted efforts, the Act not only drives technological progress but also contributes to mitigating climate change by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions associated with traditional energy production processes. While passing these two pieces of laws was no small feat, very few are aware of the legislation and its effects on climate change. A CBC News Poll found that many citizens are not aware of Biden’s efforts to combat climate change, and even loyal voters are yet to pinpoint a clear policy reducing emissions in the United States. This could be explained by the “pork barreling” that happens to most federal environmental policies—the majority of the laws applicable to carbon emissions are tucked under front-facing laws on the economy. 

Before his term was up, President Biden set the U.S. climate target at a 61-66% cut in emissions (Metha, 2025). The speed in which President Trump has uprooted former climate policy is unprecedented. President Trump froze funds appropriated by Congress for clean energy projects, this will primarily affect wind energy, America’s largest source of renewable power (Plumer, 2025). In late January, he issued an executive order that halted all leasing of federal lands and waters for new wind farms. This order also calls on federal agencies to stop issuing permits for all wind farms nationwide. At the moment, the order does not put a hold on wind projects already under construction but conversations with the U.S. Attorney General show the possibility of Trump eventually terminating leases that have been issued. Meaning so many projects that have already received federal approvals could now face new challenges. These moves will inevitably have a devastating effect on the American wind industry, a new and growing sector that already provides ten percent of the nation’s electricity. In Republican-led states like Iowa, Oklahoma, and Texas these wind powered projects make up a major source of power. According to the American Clean Power Market Report, the wind industry has nearly 40 gigawatts worth of projects under development, which is enough to power millions of homes (American Clean Power, 2024). Wind is an emissions-free source of energy, the turbines that circulate the air do not further contribute to pollution in the air or water and it doesn’t require water for cooling. The turbines also reduce electricity generation relying on fossil fuels ( Department of Energy, 2025). The Trump Administration has also fired thousands of federal workers, closed programs designed to help polluted communities,  and completely erased mentions of climate change from federal websites (White House, 2025). 

Heightening fossil fuel production appears to be President Trump’s solution to inflation and the current cost of living crisis. On January 20, the President declared an “energy emergency” , giving him the ability to fast-track construction of oil and gas projects (White House, 2025). Claiming that the high energy costs are devastating American consumers by increasing costs of transportation, heating, and manufacturing—President Trump seeks to enact his energy policy through this emergency order. While the Constitution and its statutes give Presidents broad powers to declare emergency, the Biden v. Nebraska's ruling holds that emergency authority does not give the President's power to take actions free from statutory limitations (Guarna, 2025). Past precedent has set limitations on fossil fuel manufacturing so emergency authority is unable to completely override that. 

Only two months into Trump’s new administration and it’s too early to yet quantify the impact that higher levels of fossil fuel production will have on communities. What we do know is that even amidst the growth of renewable energy, fossil fuels are still dominating global energy consumption. In 2018, 85% of global energy needs were being met by oil, natural gas, and coal (Rapier, 2019). The unearthing process and transportation leads to land degradation of essential wildlife habitats. Coal mine operations pour toxic runoff residue into streams, rivers, and lakes (Denchack, 2018). Millions of Americans are exposed to toxic air pollution, with levels high enough to cause blood disorders and leukemia (Denchack, 2018). It’s clear that excessive use of fossil fuels will only put more Americans at risk. 

Both the Senate and Congress have failed to pass comprehensive climate bills, forcing presidents who desire reform to lean on executive actions and the permissions of the Supreme Court. Climate activists around the country have had to achieve smaller state and local reforms. The lack of a streamlined effort or goal for reducing emissions across the country leaves the power in the states' hands. Leaders in Vermont have taken charge in the fight against climate change. Vermont is the greenest state in the U.S., according to ConsumerAffairs. With the lowest emissions per capita and nearly 100% of electricity sourced renewably, the Green Mountain State has earned a gold-star reputation for climate awareness and action. Almost half of the state’s power comes from the 47 hydroelectric dams around the state, and 16% of the state’s power comes from solar. Vermont also recorded the second lowest amount of waste per capita. The state’s strict policies on waste and greenhouse gas emissions set it apart from other states in the U.S.

In September 2020, Vermont passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires Vermont to reduce greenhouse gas pollution to 26% below 2005 levels by 2025. The act created legally binding emission reduction requirements. Accompanied by a Vermont Climate Change Plan, the Climate Council (a body of Legislative appointees and members of the Scott administration) spent a year developing over 230 proposed measures detailing how Vermont will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to align with the Global Warming Solutions Act (Giles, 2021). The graph below shows the peak in emissions in 2005. The levels have since declined, but in order to reach the first 2025 target, Vermont realized it would need to take larger steps. 

‍‍

Figure 3: Vermont’s GHG Emissions and Future Requirements

Source: Vermont Department of Environment. “Single-Use Products Law | Department of Environmental Conservation.” Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, 

‍

‍

Vermont has long understood the importance of converting to renewable energy.  The current law, Renewable Energy Standard, says that just 75% of electricity needs to come from renewables like wind, solar, and hydropower by 2032. And just 10% of that power needs to come from in-state sources. This means that 90% can come from other states, which typically results in an energy burden being placed in lower communities as power plants are built in underinvested cities and towns. The bill H. 289, which just made it pass the house in 2024 would put Vermont on track to achieve 100% renewable electricity across all the state’s utilities by 2035. 

As a byproduct of the Global Warming Solutions Act, Vermont enacted laws to encourage more eco-friendly behaviors among residents. From curbing plastic waste with the Single-Use Products Law to reducing the amount of food waste with the Food Scrap Ban. Both policies went into effect July 1, 2020. The law is designed to lessen the harmful effects of single-use products such as plastic bags, straws, stirrers, and expanded polystyrene products and to reduce the amount of single-use products in Vermonters' landfill. As an alternative to single-use products, stores may provide paper carryout bags at checkout for a minimum of $0.10 each. Already, this single-use products law has seen itself being replicated in other cities across the United States. Preventing waste has the best environmental and social benefits and saves money. Single-use items, paper, and packaging make up almost 1/3 of Vermont's trash—this law targets exactly that. The Food Scrap Ban requires stores and restaurants to compost their food waste as opposed to dumping it in landfills. 

VIII. Evaluating the United States’ Climate Action Policies

This paper will analyze the nation’s following policies and their efficiency in the following areas: effectiveness, equity, and political feasibility. 

Results

While the Inflation Reduction Act utterly failed to reduce inflation across the country, it did succeed in creating more clean energy jobs for electricians, mechanics, construction workers, and support staff. The White House calculated a total of 170,000 new clean energy jobs being created in less than a year of the law’s passing ( The White House). The private sector has announced more than $110 billion in new clean energy manufacturing investments, including more than $70 billion in the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain and more than $10 billion in solar manufacturing ( The White House). Energy poverty often occurs when workers in fossil fuel industries are displaced by budget cuts and closures. Many lack the right degree to pivot to another sector, leaving them without work. Creating new energy jobs for those workers promotes equity while also bettering the environment. The Chips and Science Act appears to be more focused on positioning the country as a stronger geopolitical power instead of a leader in environmental sustainability, and not much research shows its climate mitigation ambitions being actualized. It is important to note that the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act were adopted less than four years ago, making it difficult to gauge the full extent to which the policy has reduced carbon emissions. Quantifying the overall reduction in emissions in the United States could take up to three to six more years as the 2030 target nears. However, the new sustainable jobs and million-dollar investments in cleaner energy projects may be responsible for the decrease in coal mining. America’s greenhouse gas emissions fell 1.9% in 2023 due to a drop in coal production (Plumber, 2024). The United States economy is built on fossil fuels, and the only way to dismantle that is to invest in greener methods of development, such as renewable energy and cleaner energy jobs. However, the political feasibility of transitioning to 100% renewable energy is very low. Very little environmental legislation passes the Senate as the possible detriments to the economy seem to outweigh the demand for climate mitigation. Oil drilling companies are also renowned for their lobbying and financial negotiations that force many representatives to succumb.  This is why the work being done in Vermont sets a clear example for other American states. The clear, legally binding emissions reduction goal encoded in their law influences other policies like the Single-Use Products law and the Food Scrap Ban. Their Renewable Energy Standard holds leaders and industries in Vermont accountable and targets businesses and individual citizens alike. A large percentage of the country being unaware of Biden’s climate provisions suggests a substantial communication gap between Biden’s Administration and the people. The federal policies designed to combat climate change in the United States succeed in directing new investments toward cleaner energy development; however, without the necessary standards and legally binding regulations, there is very little enforcement or accountability. The federalism system appears to weaken climate action as the majority of the responsibility is left to state leaders and whether or not they prioritize climate change. The lack of streamlined enforcement leads to green states like Vermont and California taking the lead while other states question the validity of climate change and actively work against reducing emissions. 

IX. Denmark vs. United States

In contrast to Denmark's cooperative federalism approach to climate change, the United States adopts an ad hoc federalism model, resulting in a fragmented and often inconsistent approach to climate policy across different states. America’s climate change policies waver dramatically depending on the President in office. While the U.S. federal government incorporates carbon emission goals and sentiments into smaller provisions in larger pieces of legislation, there is a lack of clearly communicated standards. Both Denmark and the United States invest a significant amount of money into cleaner development, but only Denmark has a clear carbon tax putting financial pressure on large corporations and private industries. 

In the United States, the implementation of climate policies largely falls to individual states, leading to a patchwork of regulations and initiatives. In contrast, Denmark's cooperative federalism model fosters collaboration between the national government and local authorities, facilitating a more cohesive and coordinated response to climate change. The Denmark Climate Law flows seamlessly through DK2020 and each municipality's climate action plan. Denmark's approach emphasizes shared responsibility and resource-sharing, enabling the country to develop more effective and equitable climate policies. By prioritizing consensus-building and inclusive decision-making processes, Denmark has been able to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while promoting social equity and environmental sustainability.

X. Conclusion

As illustrated by the country of Denmark, reimagining a green climate economy and a net-zero nation requires transitions to renewable energy, placing financial pressure on high carbon emitters and setting and enforcing clear, legally binding emission standards. Developing multi-purpose infrastructure that combats pollution and waste while also catering to human needs is key in developing a sustainable green economy. Incentivizing citizens and encouraging residents to adopt more eco-friendly lifestyle behaviors by investing in public transportation and safe walkable communities is also vital.  In conclusion, the environmental policies put forth by Denmark and the United States represent two distinct approaches to addressing climate change. While leaders of both nations currently recognize the urgency of climate action, they differ in their prioritization of economic concerns, equity considerations, and funding mechanisms. Denmark's ambitious targets, emphasis on social equity, and sustainable funding mechanisms position it as a global leader in climate policy, whereas the United States' approach has been criticized for its perceived prioritization of short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability. Ultimately, the effectiveness of climate change policies depends on a combination of federalism structure, financial accountability, clean energy development, and strong collaboration to achieve meaningful progress in mitigating climate change's impacts. Denmark sets a shining example of what can be possible in the United States: a vibrant and innovative environment for generations to come.