N※N

Sri Lankan student leaders lament government refusal to meet demands

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. s-lament-government-refusal-to-meet-demands.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Monday, October 27th 2025 at 23:59 GMT by World Socialist Web Site
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-27 300 x 168 / 17901 Bytes

2025-10-27 300 x 168 / 9489 Bytes

2025-10-27 310 x 163 / 12321 Bytes

2025-10-27 275 x 183 / 9555 Bytes

United States Passes Landmark Climate Legislation, Yet Old Power Structures Remain Intact

On 28 October 2025, the U.S. Congress enacted the “American Energy Transition Act” (AETA), a sweeping law that obliges federal agencies to reduce greenhouse‑gas emissions to net‑zero by 2050 and imposes a cap‑and‑trade system on carbon output for the private sector. The bill represents the culmination of a decade‑long effort by progressive lawmakers and environmental NGOs, and it signals a turning point in U.S. climate policy. However, the law’s implementation mechanisms reveal that the fossil‑fuel industry’s influence and the entrenched neoliberal economic agenda still dominate the political landscape.

Key Provisions of the AETA

The Act’s main features include:

1. Mandatory Net‑Zero Target – All federal agencies must cut emissions by 90 % from 2010 levels and achieve net‑zero by 2050. The Department of Energy will lead a national research and development (R&D) program to accelerate renewable energy technologies, including advanced solar, wind, and hydrogen production.

2. Carbon Price and Cap‑and‑Trade – A national carbon price will rise annually from $50 per tonne in 2026 to $200 per tonne by 2035, creating a predictable financial incentive for emission reductions. Corporations will be required to hold allowances equal to their emissions, with excess allowances tradable on a nascent national carbon market.

3. Investment in Green Infrastructure – The law earmarks $300 billion for the construction of a high‑speed rail network, upgrades to public transit, and the expansion of offshore wind farms along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

4. Regulatory Safeguards – A “Carbon‑Aware Review” will be instituted for all major federal permitting processes, ensuring that environmental impact assessments explicitly incorporate climate risks.

Political Context and Opposition

While the passage of AETA has been hailed as a victory for environmental advocates, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Alondra “Lola” Vega (D–California), noted that the law’s scope is still limited by a lack of enforcement power at the state level. In a statement to The New York Times, Vega emphasized that the federal government cannot compel states to adopt stricter standards without risking legal challenges.

Opposition to the bill was led by the American Energy Coalition (AEC), a powerful lobbying group representing coal, oil, and natural‑gas interests. The AEC’s spokesperson, John Dillard, claimed that the carbon price would “disproportionately hurt small businesses” and would “slow down economic growth.” The group’s campaign, funded by the Energy Security Fund, has spent over $50 million in the last two years to lobby against climate legislation, as highlighted in a previous WSWS analysis, “The Fossil Fuel Lobby’s New Front Lines.”

Implementation Challenges

The Act’s implementation hinges on several contentious issues:

• State Autonomy – While federal agencies are required to comply, states retain authority over zoning, transportation, and energy regulation. Without a binding national framework for state-level action, many states may choose to maintain the status quo or even roll back local climate measures. AWSWS article “State vs. Federal: The Battle for Climate Governance” documents how several southern states have passed legislation limiting the application of federal environmental standards.

• Industrial Resistance – Major polluters have already filed lawsuits in federal court to block the enforcement of the cap‑and‑trade system. The “Coal Power Corp. v. United States” case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleges that the new regulations violate the Constitution’s commerce clause. This litigation, chronicled in WSWS’s “Court Battles Over Carbon Limits,” could delay the rollout of the carbon market for years.

• Infrastructure Funding – The $300 billion earmarked for green infrastructure will be financed through a combination of federal bonds and public‑private partnerships. However, the private sector’s willingness to invest remains uncertain, especially in the absence of a stable regulatory environment that guarantees long‑term returns on green projects.

Global Repercussions

Internationally, the AETA has been praised by the European Union and the United Nations for aligning the United States with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 °C goal. EU Commissioner for Climate Policy, Maria Gonzales, described the law as “a crucial step toward a global transition away from fossil fuels.” However, China’s Ministry of Commerce has warned that the new carbon pricing could “increase competitiveness disadvantages for Chinese exporters,” echoing concerns previously raised in WSWS’s “China’s Response to Western Carbon Policies.”

Conclusion

The American Energy Transition Act marks a significant policy shift in U.S. climate governance, establishing legally binding targets and creating a market mechanism to price carbon. Yet the law’s success will depend on how effectively the federal government navigates the entrenched power of the fossil‑fuel lobby, reconciles state autonomy, and mobilizes private investment. As the WSWS has documented in related pieces—most notably “The Fossil Fuel Lobby’s New Front Lines” and “State vs. Federal: The Battle for Climate Governance”—the battle over climate policy is far from over. The next few years will test whether the American public and its representatives can overcome the political and economic structures that have historically protected the fossil‑fuel industry.