The ongoing campaign by the White House to block accountability for the fossil fuel industry has hit a new low with the proposed elimination of mandatory carbon emission accounting. A look at the global business and policy landscape, however, indicates that this effort may hurt not just public health and safety, but the very companies the proposal is supposed to help.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed a rule on September 12 that would eliminate requirements for measuring and reporting carbon emissions for the vast majority of US industries, including fossil fuel producers and refiners. This comes on the heels of multiple other attempts by Administrator Zeldin to relieve fossil fuel interests from climate accountability, most prominently his proposal to rescind the EPA’s 2009 finding that global-warming emissions are harmful—and thus require regulation—despite decisive scientific research showing that such emissions pose a serious threat to human health.
The EPA system by which companies calculate how many climate-altering emissions their facilities produce is called the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). GHGRP had bipartisan support upon its creation by Congress in 2008, and many have come to value the data it produces. Scientists use GHGRP data to track emissions trends and determine hot spots, information crucial for informing policymakers as well as well as communities exposed to these high levels of pollution. Systematically measuring emissions allows companies to compare their numbers with those of competitors and communicate with investors and the public about their climate impacts.
When the EPA first announced its intention to reconsider GHGRP months ago, indications were that certain oil and gas facilities would still have to report emissions. The burning of fossil fuels is responsible for 75 percent of global carbon emissions. The proposal that was ultimately released in September, however, would permanently remove reporting obligations for fossil gas distribution entities and suspend reporting for other oil and gas facilities until 2034.
No reporting, no deal
The White House clearly considers the GHGRP rollback part of its plan to pump up US oil and gas production. The US exports far more gas than coal and hopes to surge exports to regions like the European Union (EU), as evidenced by the administration’s recent European medicine show, where Energy Secretary Chris Wright told leaders to roll back environmental regulations and buy more US fossil fuels.
However, killing the program may actually complicate such efforts. GHGRP data can be used to qualify companies to sell their oil and gas to countries and regions with carbon emission disclosure standards, like the EU. Though the EU is slated to buy hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. gas after some arm-twisting by the Trump administration, the trading bloc will require exporters to disclose their emissions of the fossil fuel gas methane starting in 2027, with the goal of limiting emissions by 2030. Companies planning to use GHGRP data will now likely have to pay a third party for emissions accounting, according to industry analysts.
The short-sightedness of rolling back the GHGRP is reminiscent of the administration’s termination of several regulations requiring companies to measure and disclose climate-related financial risks. Many of the countries the US does business with have adopted such regulations, putting the US at a disadvantage. According to the Climate Policy Monitor, an initiative based at the UK’s Oxford University that tracks climate-related policies across the world, at least nine countries and regions—including Brazil, China, South Korea, and the EU—require companies to disclose the physical risks that climate change poses to their operations and business. Public procurement contracts also increasingly contain sustainability requirements, meaning “potentially huge amounts of public spending are being re-routed towards products and suppliers that align with national climate objectives,” according to the Monitor’s 2024 report. .
Studies have determined that accounting and disclosure programs like GHGRP are effective in changing corporate behavior. One study found that facilities reduced their emissions by almost 8 percent within two years of reporting under the program, spurred by benchmarking against peers and concerns about legislation. Requiring companies to measure and disclose risk-inducing externalities like global warming emissions brings other benefits to companies as well.
A Columbia University review of mandatory, quantitative, and uniform disclosures found they can lead to “increased market share for a corporation that privately anticipates the economic consequences of disclosure, benchmarks its own performance relative to its competitors, and responds to public signals from investors, consumers, and regulators.” As the old saying goes, you can’t manage what you don’t measure.
Stopping reporting won’t stop global warming
The need for companies to disclose emissions and climate-related risks is more urgent than ever. Global warming emissions continue to rise despite the proliferation of voluntary carbon-cutting pledges that financial institutions and other companies signed on to at the behest of their shareholders and consumers. Voluntary target-setting was never going to provide a lasting solution to climate change, but it often laid the groundwork for lasting regulations, which motivated many companies to take part.
Meanwhile, the costs of climate change continue to accrue. The global insurance provider Swiss Re calculated that losses from natural catastrophes like hurricanes Milton and Helene reached $318 billion in 2024 alone, and are set to increase around 6 percent annually. Science has shown that climate change makes these catastrophes more frequent and severe, and the field of attribution science is increasingly able to tie climate impacts and extreme events to specific companies’ emissions.
Using Carbon Majors, a database of carbon emissions dating back to the start of the Industrial Revolution, UCS has shown that just 122 fossil fuel and cement companies are responsible for 94% of industrial carbon dioxide emissions since 1959. Scientists are able to use the Carbon Majors database to quantify contributions of these companies to sea level rise, areas burned by wildfires, and other climate-related harms. Such research can inform dozens of lawsuits aiming to hold fossil fuel companies accountable—lawsuits that some elected officials and politicians are trying to derail by protecting companies with a liability shield.
The tragedy of energy transition delay
The Trump Administration’s anti-sustainability intimidation tactics have pushed many companies to abandon their voluntary commitments, leading groups like the Net Zero Banking Alliance to suspend operations. This concerning trend led 54 groups (including the Union of Concerned Scientists) to call on central bank leaders and financial system regulators to require mandatory emissions disclosure rules and climate transition plans that prioritize financing of renewables over fossil fuels.
The initiative was sparked by the tenth anniversary of a speech by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney when he was governor of the Bank of England. The speech, titled “Tragedy of the Horizon,” discusses how the dangers of climate change extend beyond the political, business and financial cycles.
“We don’t need an army of actuaries to tell us that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors, imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix,” Carney said. Making companies provide information about their emissions and related risks can create that incentive, however. “By managing what gets measured, we can break the Tragedy of the Horizon,” he said.
Carney emphasized that starting the energy transition early and keeping it on a predictable path is critical for minimizing risks to financial stability. Climate risk doesn’t just influence the financial system: decisions made within the financial system influence climate risk. By delaying the energy transition, the Trump Administration is exacerbating climate catastrophes while harming the economy by distorting markets. At the end of the day, that choice is bad for corporations’ bottom-lines and devastating for the billions of people around the globe who will continue to suffer greater floods, fires, and heatwaves for every degree the planet warms.