‘No US politician is willing to risk suggesting that Americans change how they live their fossil-fuelled lives’

Elizabeth Kolbert is a Pulitzer Prize-winning environmental author and writer for The New Yorker. Speaking from the East Coast to Srijana Mitra Das at TE, Kolbert discusses America’s climate history — and its future:
Few people embody two opposite attitudes so wholly as Elizabeth Kolbert. The writer, a veteran New Yorker in more ways than one, expresses all the scepticism of that city. However, the environmentalist also brings with her a wistful, whimsical quality, a luminous understanding of an incredibly beautiful world, under grave threat — but which can still be saved.
Speaking to TE from a wood-panelled sitting room, a stone fireplace evoking the biting cold of the East Coast, Kolbert smiles and winces in equal measure. Why, TE asks her, is climate change receiving such little attention in all the noise of the 2024 US election? Kolbert says, ‘There are several answers — and none is particularly heartening. Elections in America are fought over a very small sliver of the electorate, an undecided vote in a few key states. One is Pennsylvania where natural gas is fracked — this explains why Kamala Harris decided fracking isn’t a key issue for her. Also, if you ask most American voters their priorities, they will say the economy and immigration — or the other way around.’ Kolbert shrugs almost imperceptibly and continues, ‘Ironically, a hurricane hit New Orleans recently, affecting many. Americans are feeling climate change — yet, we don’t see any political discussion of it. Clearly, our politicians are avoiding it.’
THE IRONY THAT IS AMERICA: The US has some of the world’s most stunning biodiversity and richest ecosystems — however, it lacks contentment with adequate affluence, its race and chase for more involving huge fossil fuel usage which is damaging its own stability (Photo: Getty images and istock)
The irony couldn’t be greater, given how much path-breaking climate science emerges from America. Why then is there this reluctance? Nodding, Kolbert says, ‘Discussions in American politics take place at quite a basic level — they don’t have a lot of sophistication.’ She adds, ‘Also, the US is a huge fossil fuel exporter. And America has never been a leader on climate change being we are very fossil fuel-reliant ourselves — we’ve created a lifestyle needing these energies. We haven’t taken steps, like improving our public transport, which could lower our use of fossil fuels. Doing this means people having to change their lives — no politician is willing to risk suggesting that.’
OF FIRE & ICE: American oil travels in Alaska (Photo: Getty images and istock)

How does she rate the Biden administration’s record on the environment? ‘Its main achievement is the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the first piece of climate legislation to get through Congress — Kamala Harris cast the deciding vote. If it continues, it can have a significant impact on emissions and new technologies around clean energy.’ There is a catch though. ‘The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also tried to impose far-reaching regulations to reduce emissions from power plants — the survival of these is unclear.’ Kolbert raises her eyebrows, saying, ‘We have a huge argument — this gets into the weeds of American bureaucracy — about what powers the EPA has. This brings it up against the Supreme Court which is currently very conservative and has critiqued the EPA.’ She adds, ‘A big loss has been the Willow Project in Alaska which President Biden approved, probably because he just didn’t want another fight — it involves pumping oil for years, which is exactly what we don’t need.’

FOREWARNED: Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005 (Photo: Getty images and istock)

On fracking, Kolbert says, ‘It’s had a huge impact. It turned a dying American industry around as there wasn’t much conventional oil left. Its environmental impacts are bad though. Fracking means pouring sand and chemicals into fractures in rocks to get the fossil fuels in them — sometimes, the chemicals leak out. People in these areas experience terrible water pollution. It’s also difficult to know what exactly these chemicals are because of how the laws are written. If you gave Americans a choice, asking if they’d like to live where fracking takes place, most would say no. When the history of these times is written, fracking will be seen as an astonishing mistake — but here we are.’ She shrugs again.

WORLD ON A PLATE: Burgers reflect US ecological impacts

Kolbert grows more emphatic when asked about another move the US could make — potentially electing Donald Trump. She says energetically, ‘I give the Biden ad ministration a mixed grade on climate but a Trump administration would get a failing grade — Donald Trump has done more than anyone else to botch up whatever progress the US is making. As President, he pulled America out of the Paris Agreement and even contemplated withdrawing from the UN Framework on Climate Change. His camp downplays climate change. Trump apparently said, ‘Climate change will give us more waterfront properties.’ This is hilarious in both its cavalier attitude and erroneousness. He’s surrounded by sceptics and lobbyists — this could be an administration bought and sold by the fossil fuel industry. His actions could result in many billion tons of emissions, with the dismantling of the EPA and the remaking of courts making ecological regulations hard. Trump would be epically bad for environmental progress.’



Soaring US emissions could be the last straw for developing nations being told to cut back. How could collective climate action work? Kolbert replies, ‘Developing nations are completely justified in saying, why should we be constrained when you aren’t? That said, currently emissions in the US are falling. Also, why develop in the reckless, polluting way we did? There are much better technologies today. Why would you want an unhealthy coal plant when you can have clean windfarms? There are many co-benefits to not developing the way the Global North did. One of the ways the US has fallen on climate leadership is in financing and technologies for other countries — under Trump, we won’t even promise more. So, we could be accused of great hypocrisy.’


She listens carefully, her head tilted, when TE asks how this fractured world, many of its fissures mirrored in the 2024 US election, could unite against climate change. Kolbert’s voice trembles slightly, ‘It is hard to be hopeful when you see conflicts in the world over even ancient disputes now and then say, we need to unite against something as abstract as climate change… yet, the last decade has seen tremendous growth in technologies available to solve this problem. We can use our intellectual capacity — whether we have the emotional capacity for this is unclear.’