In a move that has sent ripples through political and energy circles on both sides of the Atlantic, former President Donald Trump has endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the state’s Republican primary runoff. The endorsement, announced late Tuesday, injects a volatile element into a race already fraught with legal and ethical controversies. For observers in the United Kingdom, the bet carries implications far beyond Texas: it could shape the future of US energy policy and, by extension, global climate commitments.
Paxton, who has a long track record of challenging federal energy regulations, stands as a staunch ally of the fossil fuel industry. His office has repeatedly sued the Biden administration over environmental rules, including efforts to curb methane emissions and restrict drilling on federal lands. A victory for Paxton would embolden a legal assault on the Inflation Reduction Act's climate provisions, potentially slowing the transition to renewable energy in the United States — a critical player in global emissions reduction.
Trump’s endorsement, while not unexpected, carries notable risks. Paxton is under indictment for securities fraud and faces separate federal investigations. A loss in the primary would dent Trump’s influence in Republican politics. However, his base remains deeply loyal, and Paxton is seen as a defender of the former president’s energy agenda: deregulation, increased domestic production, and a withdrawal from international climate accords.
The United Kingdom, which has tethered its post-Brexit trade ambitions to US relations, is watching closely. British energy firms, including BP and Shell, have significant holdings in the Permian Basin, which spans Texas and New Mexico. A more aggressive legal environment could complicate their operations and investment decisions. Furthermore, the UK’s net-zero targets rely on US cooperation in technology sharing and carbon markets. Any shift in US policy towards fossil fuel expansion would undermine these efforts.
Data from the International Energy Agency shows that the United States is the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, responsible for roughly 14% of global emissions. Without sustained US leadership, the Paris Agreement goals become mathematically impossible. The UK, which hosts COP26 and champions climate diplomacy, cannot afford a US retreat.
This is the physical reality of the world: the atmosphere does not care about politics. Every molecule of carbon dioxide emitted lingers for centuries. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now 420 parts per million, levels not seen in millions of years. The energy transition is not a policy choice; it is a thermodynamic necessity. Yet the machinery of legislation and litigation continues to grind, often in the wrong direction.
From a technological perspective, the solutions are clear: solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Battery storage costs have fallen 90% over the past decade. Electric vehicles are approaching price parity. But market penetration requires stable regulatory frameworks. Uncertainty, such as that generated by a Paxton victory, deters investment and slows the pace of deployment.
The UK’s energy security strategy, which aims for 95% low-carbon electricity by 2030, depends in part on US imports of liquefied natural gas to compensate for intermittency. But LNG imports expose the UK to price volatility and geopolitical risks. A US administration that prioritises fossil fuel expansion might not be a reliable supplier in times of crisis, as seen during the Russia-Ukraine war.
What is at stake in this Texas race is not just the reputation of one man or the fate of a state. It is a proxy battle for the direction of American energy policy. And that policy will determine whether the planet warms by 2 degrees Celsius or 3 degrees Celsius, with catastrophic consequences for ecosystems and societies worldwide.
The scientific community has spoken with clarity: we must halve emissions by 2030 to avoid the worst outcomes. Every month of delay is a lost opportunity. The UK government, while commendably ambitious in its own targets, cannot afford to be complacent about the US trajectory. Behind the headlines of an endorsement lies the unvarnished physics of our warming world.
As I write this, emissions continue to rise. The race in Texas is a reminder that the struggle is not only against the inertia of the climate system but also against the political forces that profit from its disruption. The calm urgency of the moment demands that we watch this race not as a sideshow but as a signal of what is to come.
