One of the more eye-catching statistics to have been floating around the global conversation in recent times has been the allegation that in 2008, the US and EU economies were roughly the same size, but that in 2025, the US has stormed into the lead and its economy is now 50% larger than that of the EU.
This figure over-states the problem somewhat by ignoring a very basic fact: The UK was part of the EU in 2008, and no longer is in 2025. That alone accounts for a large part of the deficit. However, it does not account for it all.
What might account for it is the fact that the European Union has legislation that is actively designed to limit economic growth, while the USA has no such legislation. As the EU commission itself says:
The EU and the USA have very different frameworks for dealing with the issue of climate change. The EU approach is based on binding targets agreed among Member States, and implemented through a common legislative framework including the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The USA, on the other hand, has not passed major climate change legislation in the last ten years. The US framework is based on powers given to the US President through pre-existing legislation, and on actions taken by state governments.
And there, I would argue, is the difference: On Monday evening, President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords, lifted all bans and restrictions on gas and oil, ended subsidies for electric cars, and said that his country would no longer discriminate for or against various fuels. By contrast, the European Union is committed to a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030, which necessarily means limiting economic growth.
Do not, by the way, take my word for it: Just look at two recent examples from here in Ireland. First, there is the matter of the Dublin Airport passenger cap. It is universally agreed that Dublin Airport has both the capacity and the demand to carry more passengers in and out of the country annually than it is currently permitted to do. Whether these passengers are business travellers or tourists, each of them generates economic activity. However, the expansion of Dublin Airport’s passenger numbers is directly in contradiction to Ireland’s climate change targets, which is why so many left-wing politicians are staunchly opposed, and why the Government is in a bind over what to do.
Second, look at the Foynes Natural Gas terminal, which does not exist. It was, however, supposed to exist in order to give Ireland access to cheap US-fracked natural gas to power our electricity generation. It was explicitly blocked by the last Government on the grounds of our climate targets, meaning higher electricity costs and thus less room for economic growth.
Comparing the approaches of Ireland and the USA to climate over the next four years is instructive. Read the bit I highlighted in bold from the EU commission above: Powers over climate policy in the USA are almost exclusively vested in the President, meaning that while Donald Trump (or JD Vance) are President, the US simply will not be taking climate change action to limit economic growth.
Compare this to Ireland, where the Climate Act passed by the last Government mandates 50% cuts to emissions over the period to 2029. It is not hard to see which economy will grow faster, and become wealthier.
Of course, if you are someone who believes Climate Action is essential, this is all very inequitable. Ireland and the United States share a global climate. Even were this country to switch off entirely, the Irish climate would still be affected by global climate change caused by the Americans. They get all the benefits economically of doing nothing, and Ireland takes all the pain for trying to fix a problem we cannot fix alone, or even with the help of the EU.
What you think of this probably depends on a lot of things, but I’ll tell you what I think of it: It is utter insanity.
It is utter insanity because Irish households and consumers are being asked to pay a huge cost to solve a problem that we cannot solve, while a directly competing economy in the United States pays no cost whatever for a problem that in truth, it couldn’t solve anyway. Donald Trump is at least honest about not even trying to solve the problem – much worse are his colleagues in Beijing and New Delhi who profess to be trying to solve the problem but who are still growing their emissions at a tremendous rate annually.
The bottom line – the raw, stark facts of the matter – are that the United States is choosing to grow its economy despite the climate issue, and Ireland and the EU are choosing to limit their economies to save the climate. The net result will be that Ireland and the EU fail to solve the climate while disadvantaging themselves economically.
This is a political choice, and not one that is ever debated in these terms. Perhaps if we did debate it in these terms, Irish and EU voters would choose to die trying to fix the climate anyway. As things stand, I fear the problem is something else: That we genuinely have tens of thousands of voters in this country who genuinely think Ireland can just save the climate in Ireland, and that the Americans alone will bear the consequence of their delinquency. Somebody said that to me recently, a relatively smart person: “Who’ll be laughing when America’s on fire and we’ve got nice air” words to that effect.
That’s not how it works, lads. That’s not how it works at all.