In the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, the speech of the US president drew the world’s attention. Beyond his self-proclaimed achievements and his unending streak of discrediting of Biden’s administration along with the UN, his remarks on climate change stood out. His verdict on climate change essentially triggered doubts and questions in our minds.
The president neither spoke as a scientist nor pretended to. Instead, he relied on populist language to dismiss renewable energy as “falsely named renewables” that could not power factories. He claimed that wind turbines are “pathetic” and “the most expensive energy ever conceived.” He praised Germany for returning to fossil fuels and nuclear energy after what he called a “very sick path” of going green. According to him, “all green is all bankrupt.”
Is there logic in the president’s speech? If logic is measured by scientific accuracy, then no. But if logic is measured by a populist narrative, then yes.
He cast doubt on climate science by ridiculing its terminology. He reminded us that in the 1920s, scientists were worried about “global cooling,” in the 1970s, they warned of “global warming,” and now they speak of “climate change.” “It is the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” he declared. He cited past statements of UN officials to ridicule and criticise the institution. He reminded us that in 1982, the executive director of the UN Environmental Program predicted that by the year 2000, climate change would cause a global catastrophe, “irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” He went further to 1989 to quote another UN official who had warned that within a decade, entire nations could be wiped off the map by global warming. “Not happening,” Trump retorted, using these forecasts as proof that the UN had been peddling alarmism for decades.
He also attacked the concept of the carbon footprint, calling it a hoax “made up by people with evil intentions.” He accused environmentalists of wanting to “kill all the cows” and stop industrial life altogether. His stories about garbage floating across the Pacific, or cool winds contradicting global warming, were framed to make science look absurd. By calling climate change a scam, Trump positioned himself as the defender of the people against globalist elites. He portrayed scientists, UN officials, and international agreements as part of a conspiracy to weaken nations. In this narrative, America is the victim of unfair deals, forced to pay for the Paris Accord while others, particularly China, get away with polluting the air. By rejecting these agreements, he cast himself as the champion of sovereignty, lowering living costs, and protecting jobs and industries from the “fake energy catastrophe.”
He insisted that renewable energy is prohibitively expensive, that governments lose money subsidising it, and that ordinary people suffer through high electricity bills. He linked green policies to real suffering, citing European heat deaths caused by the inability of people to afford air conditioning.
He shifted the climate debate from ecological survival to the cost of living. He implied that only the privileged can afford to care about the planet, while leaders like him must care about jobs, energy bills, and prosperity. He implied, “why save the planet if it costs you your livelihood today?”
Is there logic in the president’s speech? If logic is measured by scientific accuracy, then no. But if logic is measured by a populist narrative, then yes. Indeed, it is the logic of populism: ridicule the experts, simplify the crisis, and turn global challenges into battles between the people and the elites. The deeper question is whether populist leaders in the West truly acknowledge climate change. Rarely do they deny it outright, but they reframe it. Some call it exaggerated. Others emphasise its costs. Still others insist that their countries are being unfairly punished while the major CO2 emitters go unchecked. What they share is a distrust of global institutions and a preference for national solutions rooted in fossil fuels. While Trump ridiculed the UN’s “failed” predictions, Pakistan was ravaged by catastrophic floods, wildfires turned fortunes to ashes in Los Angeles, relentless droughts uprooted millions across Africa, and deadly heatwaves swept through Europe and beyond.
Climate change is not waiting for leaders to settle semantic disputes. Every year lost to populist performance in the UN is a year stolen from collective survival. The president’s words may rally his supporters, but they do nothing to protect the planet. The tragedy is that such rhetoric does not merely entertain; it eventually delays action.
Yet even within his speech, contradictions are impossible to ignore. On the one hand, he argued that climate predictions have always been wrong. On the other hand, he boasted that he is “really good at predicting things” and that if nations do not abandon the “green scam,” they will fail. He ridiculed scientists for shifting metaphors, but he too shifted his own: from “green scam” to “drill, baby, drill.” This is the logic of populism: truth is less important than creating a powerful “us versus them” narrative. Populist leaders do not need to be consistent or even logical; they need to be convincing to their followers.
As long as this language dominates political forums, the world will find itself applauding populism while drifting further into crisis. We believe populism has eroded the true spirit of globalisation and multiculturalism. Populist leaders, in particular, have undermined social cohesion for their own vested interests, as is the case in Pakistan.
We have highlighted in our previous op-ed that the language of populism is messy and imperfect. It often thrives on arguments, subsequently followed by counterarguments. This language is marked by the frequent use of the first-person singular pronoun “I”, negation markers, and a good us versus bad them dichotomy. History reminds us that true progress has never emerged from populist rhetoric, but from the power of reason, the clarity of argument, and the weight of evidence. It is high time for scientists to respond with reason while dispelling doubts and addressing the questions raised by the US president about climate change. Their silence may win the White House funding for ongoing projects, but it will also serve to validate his claim – namely, that climate change is a hoax.
The first author is a Professor of English at Riphah International University, Lahore. He is a lead guest editor at Emerald and Springer publishing.
The second author is an Assistant Professor of English at Govt. Graduate College for Women, Samanabad, Lahore