Last week I wrote on LinkedIn: I have been following climate politics for a long time. I do not think I have ever felt this upset. As the climate crisis accelerates, our leaders are not accelerating climate action. They are reversing it.
The post resonated far beyond what I expected. And the most common response was a question: is it really that widespread, or does it just feel that way? This article is the answer. I spent the days since verifying every reversal I could find, decision by decision, source by source. It is worse than I wrote.
Because this was the summer the bill arrived. Three heatwaves hit western Europe in three months, including England's hottest June since records began in 1884. The June heatwave alone wiped around 10 million tonnes, worth roughly 2 billion euros, from European grain forecasts; after improved prospects in a few less affected countries, the net reduction was about 9 million tonnes, approximately 1.8 billion euros, with France accounting for 3.4 million tonnes of reduced maize after extreme heat struck during critical stages of crop development. In the UK, the same week cost the economy 1.15 billion pounds in 24 million lost working hours, and one think tank puts the productivity hit at least 2.4 billion pounds. The climate crisis is no longer a future cost. It is hitting farmers, workers, businesses and families now. In the comments, someone asked a fair question: have we not known for a long time that things are going wrong? Yes. But there is an important difference. Before, climate policy was far too weak and far too slow, but at least the overall direction was forward. Now, as the consequences become impossible to ignore, the political response is increasingly to weaken even the limited policies already in place. Climate policy is no longer just moving too slowly or getting stuck. In crucial areas, it is moving backwards. That is a profound difference. And honestly, it scares me.
So here is the verified count: 45 policy reversals in one year, numbered below, across 15 jurisdictions and the global shipping regime. Each numbered entry is one distinct policy reversal adopted, announced, proposed, taking legal effect or materially advanced between July 2025 and July 2026, and its status is stated in the entry. Six landed within five weeks this summer, during and right after the heatwave itself. These decisions were not made in ignorance of the costs. They were made in the middle of them.
Across much of the list, the lobbying and organised pressure are documented on the record: fossil fuel producers, automakers, agribusiness, and fossil producer states pressuring foreign regulators with threats of tariffs and redirected energy supplies. Every claim below links to its source. Because history will not ask whether we had enough evidence. It will ask who lobbied, who decided, and who benefited.
🌍 Global shipping
2. Cancellation push (March 2026). Washington then asked for the framework to be cancelled outright. 🇪🇺 European Union
3. Carbon market (proposed, 17 July 2026). The Commission proposed weakening the the main ETS, the carbon market covering industry and power more than analysts expected, putting roughly 2.4 billion extra tonnes of CO2 at stake, after an EPP demand paper and pressure from Poland and Italy. The European pattern in one sentence: keep the targets, weaken the machinery that delivers them.
🇩🇪 Germany
🇫🇷 France
🇨🇿 Czech Republic
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
🇺🇸 United States
17. Paris (effective 27 January 2026). The US exit from the Paris Agreement took legal effect. 🇨🇦 Canada
The North American pattern is more direct: remove the rules, expand production, and use public money to lower the political cost.
🇦🇺 Australia
🇳🇴 Norway
🇸🇪 Sweden
🇳🇿 New Zealand
🇧🇷 Brazil
🇦🇷 Argentina
🇪🇨 Ecuador
🇮🇩 Indonesia
💚 The glimmer
There is another side of this ledger, and it is real. In the same year, solar delivered the largest annual generation increase of any electricity source in history, and one in four new cars sold worldwide was electric. China and India saw coal power fall simultaneously for the first time in fifty years. And the law is being asked to hold the line: in The Hague, courts are imposing environmental duties governments resisted, and in Canberra, campaigners are asking the Federal Court to do the same. 59 countries, a third of the world economy, met in a Colombian coal port for the first global conference on how, not whether, to phase out fossil fuels. And public support for core climate principles remains strong: 72 percent of respondents in a WWF commissioned European survey back the polluter pays principle, including majorities among voters of the parties attacking it.
⚠️ But the loudest voice is still winning
Read back through the list above and count the voices. TotalEnergies held around 35 meetings with MEPs in six months. ExxonMobil was the most active corporate lobbyist on the EU's sustainability rules. The United States and three major fossil fuel exporters wrote to Brussels, and Brussels folded. An oil venture asked a new prime minister for timely approval, and the civil service was told to prepare it. A farm bloc overrode a president's vetoes. A premier ran a scrap the cap campaign, and the cap was scrapped. In every documented case, the lobby was not smarter than the public, or more numerous, or more right. It was simply louder, in the rooms where the decisions were made.
That is the uncomfortable truth this list documents, and also the hopeful one: nothing here was inevitable. These were choices, many of them made under intense, organised pressure, which means they can be unmade under counter pressure. The science is settled, the economics have flipped, the public agrees, and the courts are moving. What remains is a contest of political power: who gets access, who applies pressure, whose demands become impossible to ignore. Loudness, in that sense, is not noise. It is organisation. As long as the fossil fuel lobby is the loudest voice in the rooms where decisions are made, it will keep winning. So the task is not to hope. The task is to be louder: name the decisions, name the lobbying, name who benefited, and make silence in those rooms impossible. That is what this list is for.
If you want to support the work We Don't Have Time is doing. Please donate a sum to our #MakeScienceGreatAgain campaign. That helps us keep going!
https://wedonthavetime.org/msga
Counting rule and notes: each numbered entry is one distinct policy reversal adopted, announced, proposed, taking legal effect or materially advanced between July 2025 and July 2026; italic context lines are not counted. Status is stated in each entry: adopted laws and agreements are listed alongside proposals, guidance, coalition commitments, pending rules and reported intentions. All sources verified 25 July 2026.