How Are New Governments in the UK, US, and Canada Responding to Climate Change? 

The UK’s Labour Party has made bold promises on climate change but one year after its landslide victory, arguably not much has been achieved. In stark contrast, the new Trump administration has dismantled much of the US’s climate progress and rewritten the country’s role in international climate affairs.  

—

Mitigating climate change remains, for the most part, a top-down affair. Despite the swelling voices of civil society and businesses alike, only effective climate policy can affect the kind of change our planet desperately needs. Climate action is political – who leads a country often determines how seriously climate change is tackled. 

Yet, when election season arrives, environmental issues tend to be eclipsed by more immediate concerns such as healthcare, housing, cost of living, and job security. This is where the climate conundrum lies: future generations will pay the price if we fail to act today.

2024 was a year where many incumbent leaders were overturned by voters rattled by skyrocketing inflation and an increasingly unstable geopolitical situation. In countries like the UK, Germany and the US, climate change policies remain a polarizing political issue. Meanwhile, nations like Singapore, Denmark and New Zealand broadly agree on the goal of achieving net zero across the political spectrum.

In this article, Earth.Org looks at how some of today’s political parties are responding to the call for greater action on climate change.

United Kingdom

The Labour Party, which secured the largest majority government in 25 years at last year’s election, positioned itself as the climate-forward alternative, promising to make Britain a clean energy superpower. 

Their “Clean Power by 2030” pledge, which includes doubling onshore wind, tripling solar, and quadrupling offshore wind capacity within five years, is no doubt ambitious. Additionally, the party plans to scale up public and private investments in emerging technologies like hydrogen, tidal and wave energy and long-term energy storage while extending nuclear capabilities. Most crucially, the government is not framing climate action as a sacrifice or a cost. Through its Green Prosperity Plan, the party is linking decarbonization with economic revitalization and job creation, showing that climate action can –  and must – serve everyday livelihoods.

In practice, this means upgrading millions of homes with better insulation and low-carbon heating to lower energy bills; investing in local energy production to retain economic value within communities; and creating tens of thousands of jobs in clean energy infrastructure, home retrofitting, and supply chain industries. 

The party also advanced a bill to institute the Great British Energy, a publicly-owned clean energy company headquartered in Scotland. The proposal is intended not only to accelerate investment in renewable energy but also to ensure that the economic benefits of the clean energy transition are shared with the public, rather than captured solely by private corporations.

The ambition of the Green Prosperity Plan and the creation of Great British Energy may signal intent, but delivering on these commitments will be the real test. Turning these ambitious commitments into measurable outcomes – such as upgraded homes, new jobs, and expanded clean energy capacity – will determine whether Labour’s climate forward mandate is credible. 

Canada

Last month, Canada overwhelmingly rejected conservative ideologies in favour of a more Liberal approach, electing  former central banker and UN climate envoy Mark Carney.

The election has brought renewed attention to the country’s dual-track climate strategy. As the new leader of the Liberal Party, Carney has pledged to position Canada as an “energy superpower” – not only in clean energy, but also in conventional fossil fuels. 

“We are going to aggressively develop projects that are in the national interest in order to protect Canada’s energy security, diversify our trade, and enhance our long-term competitiveness – all while reducing emissions,” said Carney.

Rather than pursuing an abrupt phase-out of fossil fuels, Carney’s government is focusing on technological solutions to decarbonize existing systems. This includes heavy investment in carbon removal and storage, expanded electric vehicle infrastructure, and large-scale electricity transmission networks to better connect renewable power sources across Canada’s vast geography. These initiatives aim to lower emissions while maintaining economic competitiveness and energy reliability.

At the same time, Carney has moved to reform climate policy instruments, including replacing the consumer-facing carbon tax with green incentives – seeking to make climate action more politically palatable and economically inclusive. However, the industrial carbon price remains intact, reinforcing Canada’s emissions accountability at the enterprise level.

“We are pleased to see that our new prime minister has promised to strengthen it and call on him to maintain and strengthen other key climate and biodiversity protection policies,” Greenpeace Canada’s senior energy strategist Keith Stewart said in a statement.

This direction stands in sharp contrast to the opposition Conservative Party, which has pledged to scrap climate regulations, roll back clean energy investments, and expand oil and gas production and exports. 

Despite domestic political uncertainty and the complexities of trade relations – particularly with the US –Carney’s government is pressing ahead with its 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, which targets a 60% cut from 2005 levels. Whether this plan succeeds will depend not only on federal leadership, but also on cooperation with provinces, especially energy-intensive regions like Alberta, and the country’s ability to attract investment into emerging green sectors.

United States

Merely 100 days since his inauguration, US President Donald Trump has overturned years of climate progress and altered the US’ role in the global fight against climate change.. From walking away from the Paris Agreement to cutting funds for climate transition in developing countries, the current administration’s  posture leans heavily toward fossil fuel interests and deregulation. 

This regression underscores a key vulnerability in the US system: the partisan pendulum of climate policy. Every change in administration brings with it the potential for major reversals – not only in climate policy but also in social, immigration, and foreign affairs. Democratic-led ambitious climate strategies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act and climate-linked industrial policy, have been dismantled or delayed by Republican-led administrations, which view climate regulation as an economic constraint rather than an opportunity.

As a result, the US, despite being one of the world’s largest carbon emitters and innovation powerhouses, remains an unreliable partner on the global stage when it comes to long-term climate commitments. This inconsistency has a ripple effect: it undermines multilateral climate negotiations, weakens investor confidence in green sectors, and complicates other nations’ efforts to align trade or carbon border measures with US policy.

The US case demonstrates a sobering truth: if politics can enable climate action, it can just as easily disable it. In a democracy as polarized as this, the climate agenda becomes vulnerable to election cycles, party ideologies, and the influence of entrenched fossil fuel lobbies. The path forward may require more than just policy, it may demand deeper institutional reforms, bipartisan consensus-building, or even climate-resilient governance mechanisms that can withstand electoral swings.

You might also like: 100 Days of Trump: How the US Overturned Years of Climate Progress

Singapore

Singapore’s political landscape presents a rare example of bipartisan consensus on the importance of climate action – where both the ruling party and opposition agree that the green transition and net-zero goals are non-negotiable national priorities. This reflects a pragmatic political culture shaped by Singapore’s vulnerability to climate risks, its dense urban environment, and the country’s dependence on global trade and energy imports. 

The People’s Action Party, which has governed unchallenged since independence was achieved in 1965 and won another mandate earlier this month, takes a cautiously ambitious, whole-of-government approach, balancing decarbonization with economic resilience. The government has articulated a comprehensive long-term strategy through its Singapore Green Plan 2030. The roadmap focuses on nature, energy, circular economy, decarbonization, green economy and climate change adaptation. Opposition parties like the Workers Party, while aligned on fundamentals, have called for the acceleration of renewable energy adoption, increased support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the green transition, and the introduction of stronger environmental safeguards. 

The cross-party alignment suggests that climate policy in Singapore is less likely to be derailed by political turnover, unlike in many other countries. However, the real challenge lies not in setting targets, but in implementation, especially given constraints like limited land, low renewable energy potential and economic dependencies on sectors such as petrochemicals, aviation, and maritime trade. Yet these constraints have made Singapore a testbed for climate innovation, particularly in urban sustainability, carbon markets and green finance as well as regional energy cooperation among ASEAN countries. 

More on the topic: How Sustainable Cities Like Singapore Succeed in Green Urban Development

Final Thoughts 

The contrast between countries with consistent climate policies and those with volatile, partisan approaches reveals a hard truth: politics can either accelerate or obstruct the transition to a sustainable future. When political leadership aligns climate action with job security, energy resilience, and cost-of-living improvements, it transforms climate policy from an abstract ideal into a tangible public good – one that voters are more likely to support.

Ultimately, the climate crisis is the defining test of political will and institutional resilience, challenging leaders and institutions to maintain long-term climate commitments across electoral cycles, economic shocks and geopolitical disruptions.

Featured image: Paddy O’Sullivan/Unsplash.