Different powers

In the early days of his administration Donald Trump released an energy plan of his own. Executive Order ‘Unleashing American Energy’ (Jan 20, 2025) can be viewed as a parallel statement to Xi’s UN address and a good tool to compare each nations’ different energy roadmaps by.

There are some important caveats to understand before comparing US and Chinese energy strategy.

The nature of Executive Orders and Xi’s address paints the difference between how each government directs its national economy. In the USA the government cannot directly control industry, it uses different tools to create conditions to shape them. Tariffs and subsidies can be issued to protect and secure industries or lifted to open competition. Imposing or lifting regulations is more direct but does not grant complete control as industries may make unexpected adaptations. An executive order simply directs the executive branch of government to adhere to different directives in keeping with the law (and is therefore challengeable). Each department operates under these directives for as long as the Executive Order stands.

In China the economy is controlled. Industries can be virtually conceived as branches of government themselves. Coupled with a newly conceived autocratic government, the Chinese state can impose far more fixed national projects, pursuing coherent, decades long development plans, broken into 5 Year Plans. Alternatively, the USA is more a series of conflicting 4-year plans.

Unleashing American Energy and Xi’s address are better thought of as contrasting visions. We should not view them as equally reliable projections.

Total energy production: 101,083,967 Tj
Total energy supply: 90,448,927 Tj

Production and supply have a similar relationship to gross and net profit; production is that directly extracted from natural sources while supply is a more final figure that measures available energy after transformations and transport, accounting for imports and exports and energy stockpiles.

The US’s production mix closely matches its supply mix. Imports and exports are primarily behind production/ supply differential. Likewise, energy transformation and energy used in transportation alters supply levels.

Green energy up in smoke?

Unleashing American Energy is a U-turn in US energy policy. It contains paelo-conservative talking points of protectionism but it is less a plan itself and simply an overhaul of previous executive orders and regulations it describes as

“burdensome and ideological”

It aims for natural resources, namely oil, natural gas, and coal, to be fully harnessed in a surge of growth in national industry and support for national security. Considerations seen to be restricting national energy growth are shed.

The order terminates over a dozen previous executive orders, mostly from the previous administration (marking its own impermanence too), that prioritised ecological considerations in energy project proposals. Additionally, it terminates the long shelved “Green New Deal”. Had it been enacted, the resolution (which is not a binding law but more a certificate of congressional intent) proposed one of the most ambitious national Net Zero frameworks.

Instead, the free market is cited as the primary process under which national energy will thrive.

For example, calculating ‘the social cost of carbon’ is to become a no-factor in project greenlighting. Instead, a lean, strictly neo-liberal calculus will dictate federal permit applications. Extended authority, including emergency authorities, have been granted to expedite project developments.

Other important points include eliminating the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” ,defined as any incentives or policies supportive of EV adoption (subsidies, state emissions waivers) described as a series “of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government imposed market distortions”. And a separation of the national from the international. In further contrast to Xi, the executive order states: “the global effects of a rule, regulation, or action shall, whenever evaluated, be reported separately from its domestic costs and benefits”.

Unlike China, there is no ‘North Star’ to give us a bearing…

The this-way-that-way nature of US politics produces a far less defined energy roadmap compared to the state centralised economy of China. Unlike China, there is no ‘North Star’ to give us a bearing. Instead, we have to look at a variety of indicators to piece together a picture of what the USA’s energy future might look like.

The US Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 2025 - projection shows a decline in crude oil and coal production and growth in renewable energy by 2050.

The US is projected to import ~ 31% more crude oil by 2050 from 2025. Imports in petroleum decrease by 9.6%. Natural gas imports see a 18.4% decrease.

Non renewable exports are set to rise by 2050; Petroleum by 36.7%, natural gas by 65.6%, coal by 22.2%.

The EIA releases new projections every year in April. It takes into account figures and legislation in place as of the previous December, the following six-seven months saw ‘Unleashing American Energy’, the heftier ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ and various anti-renewable statements from the Trump administration. Energy policy has shifted drastically since the EIA took its projection.

With more autonomy from government, the private sector can pursue its own long-term goals. By doing, rather than steering, the manufacturing industry is perhaps the best indicator of America’s energy future.

Despite Trump's agenda, energy giant Exxon and renewable energy leader NextEra continue to invest in green energy and emission reduction targets.

Exxon, which reported $80bn in quarterly revenue as of July, is vertically integrated in its crude oil operations and horizontally integrated in its sources of energy production. As per their Advancing Climate Solutions Report, the company has pledged $30bn in low emissions technology investments by 2030. Named technologies include carbon capture and storage, green hydrogen, and biofuels.

Darren Woods, CEO, speaks of an “and not or” approach to emissions reduction and raising living standards and a commitment to help ‘bend the curve’ of rising global temperatures targeting Net Zero for all operated assets by 2050.

Exxon is expanding oil drilling across the Permian basin, an oil rich region spanning West Texas to Southern New Mexico. They say they are “technologically agnostic” and that the government should “not pick winners and losers”. In language similar to that in ‘Unleaching American Energy’ the company states that a “level playing field” will “leverage market forces” to boost American energy in all sectors.

On the other end of the spectrum is NextEra, seen as the leader in North American green energy. NextEra operates in clean, green, and renewable technologies making a more committed and consistent transition to lowering emissions. Their 2045 Net Zero targets apply to all direct and indirect emissions. The transition will be based on PV and wind energy growth supported by BESS.

Both companies lobby lawmakers for favourable policy. One of Exxon's proposed policies advocated for a carbon intensity standard on products. It would result in a unit-based carbon levy on consumer products per final carbon output recordings.

NextEra lobbied for a tax on residential PV installations. A tax would make home generation less attractive, giving commercial PV a competitive advantage.
NextEra lobbied against a power linethat would connect hydroelectric power from Quebec to Maine, where they supply a large share of homes with energy. Even the leading renewable energy company is still playing a zero-sum game.

In the USA there are no long-term national energy plans, only corporate plans; even to the detriment of parallel projects within the sector.

Another area to gain clues from are leading colleges. There is not zero federal influence in their operation but their targets and ambitions follow their own path. As emitters of intellectual capital they are influential on the next generation of industry leaders and founders.

The USA’s intellectual capitals are pursuing net zero projects adjacent to net zero projects across Europe. “Harvard will purchase the equivalent of 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, fulfilling a key component of our approach to meet our goal to be fossil fuel-neutral by 2026”, Heather Henriksen, chief sustainability officer, Harvard.

Over 1,200 colleges are signed to the UN’s environment program ‘Race2NetZero’ pledging to reach net zero by a mix of 2045 and 2050. The list includes many leading colleges such as Yale, MIT, Stanford, Cal’tech, and Columbia.

Industry and colleges show that the world took the critical 2°C figure (now 1.5°C), the increase in global temperature since pre-industrial levels at which catastrophe ensues, very seriously. While the US government chooses not to believe in climate science there is a prevailing will underscoring the Federal Government.

The Paris Climate Agreement remains strongly influential in the United States if
not in name but ambition.

Balancing trade relations with renewable growth

The UK holds 124% surplus on service exports (exports - imports over imports; (£137bn - £61.2bn) £61.2bn) with the USA and a surplus of 45% ((£29.1bn - £20.1bn) / £20.1bn) in goods trade namely machinery and transport equipment. The largest product in this category are cars, totalling £9bn from exporting 27.5% UK cars, finds the Department for Business and Trade. The US is the largest destination for UK manufactured cars.

A renewed UK/US trade deal following Donald Trump’s global tariffs announcement, lowered the original 27.5% tariff on UK cars to 10% on the first 100,000 units. A 27.5% tariff applies after the first 100,000. The deal has revived what was a troubling industry in wake of the announcements but limits export growth.

In September 2025 the UK and US reached a nuclear deal. The deal had been described as a nuclear “golden era”, a “renaissance” by brokering governments. The process of receiving a licence to establish a nuclear facility has been streamlined from 3-4 years to 2 years and promotes collaboration between UK-US firms by aligning safety assessments between the two countries.

“Nuclear will power our homes with clean, homegrown energy and the private sector is building it in Britain, delivering growth and well-paid skilled jobs for working people.” says Ed Miliband.

Chris Wright describes the deal as “a framework to unleash commercial access in both the U.S. and UK, enhancing global energy security, strengthening U.S. energy dominance, and securing nuclear supply chains across the Atlantic”. U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum affirms: “Our unshakable commitment to technological leadership” will be achieved with “innovation, strength, and key geopolitical collaboration”

The UK has fared well in the face of tumultuous economic changes brought on by the Trump administration. With the geography to grow offshore wind farms and a blend of commercial and home PV energy production, the UK has balanced renewable energy growth with stable trade relations with the US.

However, challenges lie on the horizon. How will relations change as the UK demands fewer natural gas imports? Will the UK have to rely on Chinese batteries and PV components to sustain renewable energy growth? How will these factors affect the UK’s ‘tightrope’ act?

Neither sustainable nor sovereign?

The Council of the European Union valued EU-US trade at E1.64tr (£1.45tr; $1.95tr) in 2024. Together both economies make up the largest global share in trade (30%) and global GDP (43%).

The USA is the primary destination for EU exports, receiving 20.6% of the EU’s total exports. Like the UK, road vehicles and industry machinery are some of the top exports to the USA.

The USA accounts for 13.7% of the EU imports, second largest to China at 21.3%. The EU receives petroleum and natural gas, and power generating machinery from the USA.

The EU was struck with a 15% tariff on goods earlier this year. The US government has alluded to raising tariffs on countries with stricter laws on Silicon Valley's giants when tackling anticompetitive practices from Google and Apple was already a straining effort.

The EU has pledged to import USD 750 billion in fossil and nuclear energy over the next three years. The deal provides the EU with energy security amidst conflict with Russia and instability in West Asia and helps sustain trade with the US, even if it means the EU has to take the wheat with the chaff.

The deal has been criticized by renewable transition consultants Switching Consulting as “neither a sustainable nor sovereign (energy) model.”

European nations have a big opportunity to absorb US expertise as up to 75% of US-based scientists say that they are considering leaving the country following billions of dollars in federal cuts to science and research institutes. French president Macron has been swift to seize the opportunity while clearly addressing political concerns, Tweeting: “This call is directed to all free minds who want to work for science and defend a certain vision of society.”

Though not exclusively for US researchers, the initiative seeks to make the US’s loss Frances gain by hosting international researchers. The program will receive €100m by 2030 and has received 30,000 applicants, one-third from the United States, according to Macron. Nature Magazine reports a corresponding 32% spike in US scientists applying for international jobs in Q1 2025.

In conjunction, the European Commission has advertised Super Grants! for projects selected purely on the basis of scientific excellency.

Likewise, Norway has launched a €8.4-million fund to facilitate the recruitment of top international researchers and Germany has a €500-billion infrastructure and climate package capacity it could use to attract US scientists.

Criticism has been fired both ways by industry leaders in the EU and US over opposing energy and climate legislation. In the US, Exxon CEO called the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) “the worst piece of legislation I’ve seen since I’ve been in this job” warning that the EU would harm its own operators and forfeit global investment.

The CSDDD obliges large companies to address human rights conditions throughout their and their partner’s supply chains and to adopt climate change mitigation plans in line with the Paris Climate Agreement.

Speaking via Netzeroinvestor, Zach Friedman of Ceres, a renewable energy lobby group, called the divestment from renewable energy an own goal: “It will lead to fewer manufacturing jobs, higher electricity bills for American families and businesses, and weakened global competitiveness.”

With large looming implications:

“By raising taxes on energy producers and users, this legislation puts the US at severe risk of ceding its leadership in the 21st century’s most important industries to China and other countries