The USA Versus the Environment

https://www.humantruth.info/usa_environment.html

By Vexen Crabtree 2022

#climate_change #climate_change_deniers #energy #environmentalism #france #hong_kong #japan #mexico #pollution #sustainability #the_environment #UK #USA #usa_and_the_environment #usa_republican_party

USA United States of America [Country Profile Page]
Status	Independent State
Social and Moral Index	35th best
Capital	Washington
Land Area	9 147 420km²₁
Location	North America, The Americas
Population	327.1m₂
Life Expectancy	77.20yrs (2017)₃
GNI	$64 765 (2017)₄
ISO3166-1 Codes	US, USA, 840₅
Internet Domain	.us₆
Currency	Dollar (USD)₇
Telephone	+1₈

The USA is 161st in the world regarding its responsibility towards the environment. This is computed using 21 data sets. The USA comes in the best 20 in its score on the Green Future Index₉ (amongst the highest in The Americas). It does better than average for its environmental performance₁₀ (amongst the highest in The Americas) and in its forested percent change 2000-2020₁₁. The USA doesn't do so well in other areas. The USA does worse than average in energy to GDP efficiency₁₂ and in its sign-up rate to major international accords on protecting the environment. It falls into the worst 20 in terms of the rate of rational beliefs on the environment in the population₁₃ (amongst the worst in The Americas). And finally, it is second-from-the-bottom when it comes to reducing annual meat consumption per person₁₄. In the 1970s the USA was a world leader on serious long-term environmental issues, and its scientists rang many of the first alarm bells regarding side-effects of industrial chemicals. The USA joined many groups in protecting endangered species, oceans and fisheries. Much of this continued into the 1980s. But, this didn't last. The USA drew worldwide criticism for failing to adopt the greatest international agreement for the reduction of some greenhouse gases, the Kyoto Protocol, which was accepted by nearly every other country. This is despite the fact that the USA is by a very wide margin the world's biggest polluter over time, and very disproportionately so for its population; in 2000, it had 4% of the world's population but produced 25% of the worlds' pollution₁₅. Starting with President Bush, it has been Republican Party policy not to combat climate change and to deny the scale of the problem.

Despite the failure of USA politics, its scientific institutions have been effective in pursuing sustainable goals, led by high quality and serious university-led research, managing to co-operate at state and local levels to improve the USA's impact on the world.

1. USA's Responsibility Towards The Environment

#climate_change #the_environment

Compared to The Americas (2025)₁₆
Pos.		Lower is better Avg Rank₁₆
1	Uruguay	43.2
2	Puerto Rico	47.1
3	Costa Rica	49.7
	...
28=	St Kitts & Nevis	96.9
29	Bahamas	100.9
30	Antigua & Barbuda	103.2
31	St Lucia	103.6
32	USA	103.8
33	Haiti	105.8
34	Suriname	108.5
35	Barbados	110.1
36	Grenada	125.0
	The Americas Avg	92.66
q=36.

Responsibility Towards The Environment (2025)₁₆
Pos.		Lower is better Avg Rank₁₆
1	Sri Lanka	34.9
2	Uruguay	43.2
3	Switzerland	45.0
	...
158	Seychelles	103.4
159	Bosnia & Herzegovina	103.5
160	St Lucia	103.6
161	USA	103.8
162	Lebanon	103.9
163	Papua New Guinea	104.5
164	Serbia	104.8
165	Haiti	105.8
	World Avg	84.93
q=199.

All countries' current and historical approach towards the environment is gauged via 21 datasets, including multiple decades of data on its forested percent change 2000-2020, its environmental performance, energy to GDP efficiency, its sign-up rate to major international accords on protecting the environment, the rate of rational beliefs on the environment in the population, reducing annual meat consumption per person and its score on the Green Future Index.

The countries that do the best (Sri Lanka, Uruguay and Switzerland) tend to have avoided the excesses of early industrial countries, and have not yet repeated the same mistakes of environmental destruction - at least, not on the same scale. The regions with the best average results per country are Central America, South America and Scandinavia. The worst are Eritrea, The Vatican City and Timor-Leste (E. Timor), and the worst regions Micronesia, Australasia and Melanesia.

For more, see:

" Countries With the Best Environmental Records" by Vexen Crabtree (2025).

2. Data Sets

2.1. Forest Area Change 2000-2020

#biodiversity #deforestation #environmentalism #forests #over-exploitation #the_environment

Forest Area Change 2000-2020 Higher is better₁₁
Pos.		Total₁₁
1	Guernsey	82.6%
2	Bahrain	75.2%
3	Iceland	64.7%
	...
65	Albania	2.5%
66	Luxembourg	2.3%
67	Georgia	2.2%
68	USA	2.1%
69	Ukraine	1.9%
70	Australia	1.7%
71	Austria	1.6%
72	Czechia	1.5%
	The Americas Avg	-2.1%
	World Avg	-0.1%
q=234.

The USA ranks 68th in the world regarding its forested percent change 2000-2020.

Forests are carbon sinks, mitigating against climate change₁₇_,₁₈. Unfortunately, we are destroying over 70,000 km² of forest each year₁₉. In the last few thousand years, we've removed 30-40% of the Earth's forest cover₂₀_,₁₈, mostly to clear space for agriculture, and for logging₂₁_,₂₂. The produce from both is shipped from poorer countries to richer ones. Half-hearted government efforts and company obfuscation of supply chains makes it almost impossible for consumers to tell which foods and products are from sustainable sources, and which ones are encouraging irresponsible deforestation, meaning that there is little incentive for companies to relent.

The effects are catastrophic. 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions are the result of deforestation₂₃_,₂₁. It brings soil erosion from wind and rain which, over time, can almost-permanently stop any hope of growing food₂₄, and spreads desertification. Entire ecosystems are collapsing as a result, including ones that we depend upon₂₅. The water cycle is driven by forests, and their loss reduces ordinary rainfall, increases flooding, removes an abundant source of water filtration, and contributes to a rise in water levels.₂₆.

Some regions of the world are increasing their forest cover₁₈; the best from 2000-2020 are Scandinavia (13.8% ), The Balkans (11.0% ) and Baltic States (7.6% )₁₁. There is an overall trend that developed countries gathered their riches by using up their natural resources, and now, they pay poorer countries to use up theirs instead, whilst they can afford to slowly rebuild their natural environments. But it's not wholly that simple - some rich regions are still burning through what they've got. The regions clearing their forests fastest are Central America (-12.8% ), Africa (-9.1% ) and North America (-2.9% )₁₁.

For more, see:

"Deforestation" by Vexen Crabtree (2024).

Many rich countries. including the USA, are increasing their forest cover whilst they import foods and goods that result from deforestation elsewhere. Tracing supply chains is difficult and supply firms obfuscate the chain of production so it's difficult to tell what products are to blame, and, some governments are particularly reluctant to fund investigations into the deforestation footprint of imports.

“Keiichiro Kanemoto and Nguyen Tien Hoang, of the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature in Japan, combined data on global forest loss with that on international trade between 2001 and 2015. They calculated that rich-country demand [...] contributed to a net loss of 20,000 square kilometres of forest in the rest of the world in 2015 alone.”
The Economist (2021)₂₇

The USA should take deforestation more seriously and engage in the international efforts, as the negative effects of deforestation will affect us all, but cannot be handled well by countries working alone.

Averages by decade for the USA (for the ranks, lower is better):

Forest Area Change 2000-2020	2000s Average	2010s Average
the USA:	1.7%	0.3%
World Rank:	59th	⇣ 75th
World Avg:	0.6%	-0.7%

2.2. Environmental Performance

#climate_change #energy #sustainability #the_environment

Environmental Performance Higher is better₁₀
Pos.		2018₁₀
1	Switzerland	87.4
2	France	84.0
3	Denmark	81.6
	...
24	Cyprus	72.6
25	Canada	72.2
26	Portugal	71.9
27	USA	71.2
28	Slovakia	70.6
29	Lithuania	69.3
30=	Bulgaria	67.9
30=	Costa Rica	67.9
	The Americas Avg	58.8
	World Avg	56.4
q=180.

The USA ranks 27th in the world regarding its environmental performance (one of the highest in The Americas).

The Environmental Performance Index 2018 data includes 24 indicators including air pollution, water and sanitation, biodiversity, ecosystems and environmental health, combined into a single score by country, by the Yale University Center for Environmental Law & Policy.

2.3. Energy to GDP Efficiency

#energy #sustainability #the_environment

Energy to GDP Efficiency Lower is better₁₂
Pos.		2022 Avg₁₂
1	Rwanda	0.25
2	Chad	0.26
3	Tanzania	0.31
	...
112	Thailand	1.26
113	Slovakia	1.26
114	Sweden	1.30
115	USA	1.36
116	Czechia	1.36
117	Liberia	1.37
118	Armenia	1.42
119	Finland	1.44
	The Americas Avg	1.42
	World Avg	1.23
q=165.

The USA ranks 115th in the world regarding energy to GDP efficiency.

GDP per unit of energy consumption is often called 'Energy Intensity'. It's how efficient countries are at producing GDP in terms of primary energy use. It represents primary energy consumption using the substitution method, per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). A lower value means that less energy was used to maintain the country's GDP.

Averages by decade for the USA (for the ranks, lower is better):

Energy to GDP Efficiency	1960s Average	1970s Average	1980s Average	1990s Average	2000s Average	2010s Average
the USA:	3.50	3.49	2.68	2.31	1.86	1.55
World Rank:	55th	⇣ 57th	⇣ 115th	⇡ 113th	⇡ 111th	⇣ 121st
World Avg:	2.05	2.13	2.10	2.15	1.60	1.30

2.4. International Accords on the Environment

#environmentalism #internationalism

International Accords on the Environment Higher is better
Pos.		Total Avg Rate
1	Sweden	83%
2	Canada	82%
3	Norway	81%
	...
155	Oman	48%
156	Yemen	48%
157	Comoros	48%
158	USA	47%
159	Albania	47%
160	Turkey	47%
161	Cambodia	47%
162	Kyrgyzstan	46%
	The Americas Avg	60.7%
	World Avg	57.5%
q=197.

The USA is 158th in the world when it comes to its sign-up rate to major international accords on protecting the environment.

Each country is scored using a formula that takes the date each country took up major international environmental agreements, as a ratio of maximum possible days. The agreements covered are: (1) the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, (2) the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides, (3) the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, (4) the Waigani Convention (for those countries that are eligible), (5) the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), (6) the Kyoto Protocol and (7) its successor, the Paris Agreement, (8) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), (9) the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and finally, (10) the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

For more, see:

" Countries With the Best Environmental Records" by Vexen Crabtree (2025).

In the 1970s and 1980s, the USA was an active participant in global efforts to reduce environmental abuses. It was one of 18 countries who enacted Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in its first year (1975) and one of 8 countries who ratified the Vienna Convention on the ozone layer in 1986, encouraging the rest of the world to do so later. In 1988, it was the second country to sign the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer (beaten only by Mexico three weeks earlier). But since then, it ceased co-operating. It remains the only developed country that has not signed the Basel Convention on Hazardous Waste (in total, only 5 trading countries have not) despite its responsibility as the world's largest exporter of hazardous waste, and is the only country (except the Vatican) to not accept the Convention on Biological Diversity. After 26 years, it still hasn't signed the Rotterdam Convention on obtaining prior consent before transporting hazardous chemicals around the world (almost every other rich nation has). The USA also has reponsibilities under the Waigani Convention to protect South Pacific Islands from its hazardous waste, but, has neglected to ratify it into law (neither has France nor the UK).

2.7.1. 1990-2000s: President Bush Versus Kyoto

#climate_change #environmentalism #russia #USA

In 1990 the US population was 4% of the Earth, but, it accounted for 36.1% of worldwide greenhouse emissions₂₈. It has a moral obligation to help correct this damage.

In 1997, to combat Global Warming, the Kyoto Protocol aimed to lower the production of greenhouse gases; industrial countries committing to an 8% reduction by 2012 compared to 1990₂₈. Bill Clinton signed it in 1998 and in 2004, Russia accepted it₂₉, making the protocol legally binding internationally as Russia accounted for 17% of the 1990 levels of global greenhouse emissions, meaning that over 55% of all greenhouse gases were accounted for internationally. Kyoto had shortcomings, but it was still invaluable as a symbolic statement wherein the world sought to act in unison to combat a shared threat and 73 countries become signatories to it₂₈.

But President Bush of the Republican Party opposed it, and in 2001 the United States provoked widespread international criticism by rejecting the Kyoto protocol₁₅ as soon as he was inaugurated. He argued that the US economy was more important₃₀. The USA similarly scuppered the Bonn amendment.

“This ignorant, short sighted and selfish politician, long since firmly jammed into the pockets of the oil lobby, clearly couldn't care less. The talks in Bonn in July must now concentrate on world action independent of the U.S.”
European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström (2001)₃₁

President Bush on the Kyoto Protocol said that "this is the American position because it's right for America" and, just to make the point clear, he added:

“We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America.”
"Why Do People Hate America?"
Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies (2002)₃₂

“George W Bush ... walked away from his international obligations. [...] Why? The answer is corporate payback. This has been the defining trait of President Bush's administration. His election was a straightforward capitalist venture for the energy corporations. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies are the power behind Bush; together, they donated more than $50 million dollars to put him in the White House. As soon as he was elected, it was payback time and Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions dead and buried.”
Bianca Jagger (2001)₃₃

There are people in the US government who wish take measures to reduce US pollution. In 2003 October an amendment to an inactive US global warming bill was backed by Republican John McCain and Democrat Joe Lieberman, which would have required power stations to reduce their emissions to the same levels that they were in 2000, three years ago, by 2010. This would be woefully inadequate, and "Senator McCain told the Senate that it was "a very minimal proposal" that should be the first step"₃₄. Despite it being way below the minimum required, it was still voted out 55-43. "However, opponents of the bill backed the White House view that it would increase household energy bills and hamper job creation"₃₄.

Averages by decade for the USA (for the ranks, lower is better):

International Accords on the Environment	1970s Average	1980s Average	1990s Average	2000s Average	2010s Average
the USA:	45%	97%	38%	33%	30%
World Rank:	6th	⇡ 1st	⇣ 131st	⇣ 189th	⇣ 194th
World Avg:	8.5%	23.3%	45.0%	74.4%	90.7%

2.5. Rational Beliefs on the Environment

Rational Beliefs on the Environment Higher is better₁₃
Pos.		2011 %₁₃
1	Argentina	78.3%
2	Greece	77.6%
3	Brazil	77.1%
	...
127	UAE	20.8%
128	Norway	20.5%
129	Botswana	20.4%
130	USA	19.7%
131	Kuwait	19.6%
132	Zimbabwe	19.6%
133	Latvia	19.5%
134	Tunisia	19.3%
	The Americas Avg	58.6%
	World Avg	39.9%
q=145.

The USA ranks 16th-worst in the world when it comes to the rate of rational beliefs on the environment in the population (amongst the worst in The Americas).

2.6. Meat Consumption

#animal_rights #animal_welfare #diet #food #health #meat #veganism #vegetarianism

Meat Consumption Lower is better₁₄
Pos.		2021 kg₁₄
1	Congo, DR	03.0
2	Burundi	03.5
3	Bangladesh	04.3
	...
178	St Vincent & Grenadines	109.5
179	Australia	110.2
180	Bahamas	111.9
181	Argentina	115.5
182	Mongolia	115.6
183	Nauru	125.9
184	USA	126.8
185	Hong Kong	146.9
	The Americas Avg	70.3
	World Avg	52.5
q=185.

The USA comes 2nd-worst in the world, only Hong Kong is worse, regarding reducing annual meat consumption per person.

There are five key arguments in favour of vegetarianism which accrue even from partial adoption: (1) Vegetarian diets have notable health advantages over carnivorous diets, especially for heart and cardiovascular issues₃₅_,₃₆_,₃₇. (2) It is morally better to avoid killing or harming animals. (3) Plant-based diets use much less water than carnivorous ones, to the extent that agricultural and water management scientists urge governments to encourage people to switch₃₈. (4) Vegetarian food production uses substantially less land₃₅_,₃₉_,₄₀. And, (5) vegetarianism is better for the environment than meat-production for emissions, sewerage, pollution and chemicals usage.₃₅_,₃₉. A plant-based diet causes 75% less greenhouse gas emissions than a typical carnivorous diet₄₀. The global food industry causes about 1/3 of all planet-heating emissions, and so "to slow the worst climate effects, the United Nations has called for a drastic reduction in meat consumption"₄₀. Despite this, "reducing appetites for carbon-intensive meat and dairy is incredibly hard"₄₁ and as countries get richer, they tend to eat more meat.

In the 2010s, USA's meat consumption per person was the 3rd-highest in the world, after Hong Kong and Australia, putting unnecessary strain on water supplies and the environment.₁₄

On average throughout the 2010s, the USA's rate was 118.5.

2.7. Green Future Index

#climate_change #energy #sustainability #the_environment

Green Future Index Higher is better₉
Pos.		2023 Score₉
1	Iceland	6.7
2	Finland	6.7
3	Norway	6.4
	...
16	Luxembourg	5.6
17	Greece	5.6
18	Portugal	5.5
19	USA	5.4
20=	Switzerland	5.4
20=	Poland	5.4
22	Austria	5.4
23	Bulgaria	5.3
	The Americas Avg	4.6
	World Avg	4.8
q=76.

One of the highest in The Americas in terms of its score on the Green Future Index, the USA comes 19th-best in the world.

The Green Futures Index (GFI) has been running since 2021, and looks at 23 data sets for over 70 countries, with a focus on effectiveness, policy and planning 'for a low carbon future. It is complementary to existing goals and frameworks for sustainable development'. Datasets include qualitative appraisals and quantitative measurements on carbon emissions across multiple sectors, renewable and nuclear energy, recycling capabilities, green technologies used in building and construction, transport, scientific and industrial green innovations and patent quantities, climate action and climate policies. Each country is then ranked by their final score.₄₂.

The 2023 edition of the Green Futures Index found that the USA is doing the best at creating green buildings, helping to reduce energy requirements and emissions₄₂.

3. The Republican Party: How Power, Greed and Selfishness Creates a Party of Climate Supervillains

#australia #canada #USA #usa_republican_party

Under President Jimmy Carter, the USA managed many bipartisan (two-party) agreements between the Democrats and the opposition party, the Republicans₄₃. This included "mandated increases in the efficiency of appliances and required substantial gains in automobile mileage performance" as result of concerns about the environment₄₃. But, this was followed by a complete change from the Republican Presidents which followed.

“Two decades of bipartisan support for environmental science evaporated when Ronald Reagan became president. He and his appointees flatly denied the existence of either an energy problem or a threat of global warming.”
"The Storms over Climate Change" by David Morrison (2010)₄₃

The USA's Republicans are the only mainstream conservative party that denies climate change in their official policies and documents₄₄, according to Sondre Båtstrand at the University of Bergen in Norway who studied the policies of conservative parties from a collection of advanced countries₄₄.

The USA's most powerful party sits in such an extreme and worrying position out-and-out because of the political influence of its fossil fuel industry₄₄. But it doesn't have to be like that - Canada and Australia both have economies with a greater share occupied by fossil fuels; yet in those places the governments are much freer to pursue climate goals₄₄. The USA is an outlier₄₄, with harmful positions remaining popular and immovable, damaging the health of the entire planet.

"Global Warming" again hit the news in the USA in 1988, when American scientists such as Jim Hansen began sounding the warning bells publicly, after a scientific consensus on the matter had already emerged. But it was a decade where the Republicans dominated American politics. In that year, 32 climate-related bills had been introduced in Congress, but none of them were passed₄₃.

“[Republican] Senator James Inhofe (then-chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works) called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people." In 1997, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution blocking adoption of the Kyoto Protocol by a vote of 97-0. In Washington, politics, money, and ideology were in ascendancy over science. The situation became even worse under George W. Bush.”
"The Storms over Climate Change" by David Morrison (2010)₄₃

The techniques use to try to bury the evidence for anthropogenic climate change knew few bounds; active lies and deceit, suppression of science and scientific voices, and huge public-relations campaigns were all employed to limit, slow and remove control measures and to stop the public from understanding the problem.

“Hansen's book [Storms of My Grandchildren (2010)] describes his... interactions with Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush's Climate Task Force. We also hear about Hansen's experience in 1989 when he revealed, at a Senate hearing chaired by Al Gore, that the White House had altered his written testimony. In 2005 he again became the center of a controversy over censorship, as political appointees at NASA Headquarters tried to control even the basic temperature data that were being posted on the GISS website. When Andy Revkin of the New York Times exposed this heavy-handed attempt at political interference, the NASA Public Affairs officers backtracked and blamed the "misunderstanding" on a twenty-four-year-old intern who had faked his college degree and boasted that his job at NASA was "to make the President look good."”
"The Storms over Climate Change" by David Morrison (2010)₄₃

Even in recent years, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush aimed to simply remove USA climate policies₄₄.

4. Methyl Bromide

#USA

An agricultural pesticide, this chemical is agreed to be completely eliminated in accordance with international agreement on account of its dangerous effects on the Ozone layer which protects us from the sun's radiation. But, despite the success that both underdeveloped and the most advanced countries have had in eliminating its use, the USA wants to increase its own usage of it for commercial farming:

“Developed nations have already cut their use of the chemical by 70%, pledging to phase it out by 2005. [...] But the [US team at the Nairobi conference] asked to be allowed to increase methyl bromide use in 2005 rather than eliminating it. [...] US farmers argue there is no effective alternative.
But David Doniger of the environmental group the Natural Resources Defence Council, who was at the talks, said the US government gave in to the demands of business. "The Bush administration is tilted way over towards the polluters and caters to their wish-list of regulatory weakenings," Mr Doniger said. [...]
US negotiators said they remained committed to the protocol. But the head of their delegation admitted there would now be pressure inside the US simply to ignore its obligations on methyl bromide. Environmental groups are concerned that if the US does not abide by the Montreal Protocol, some poorer countries will also decide to ignore it.
Although the damage to the ozone layer is continuing, scientists say the protocol is having an effect and should eventually return the atmospheric layer to health later this century - but only if nations stay committed to the cause.”
BBC News (2003)₄₅

The scientific community and the responsible educated world all agree that short term economic interests are not as important as maintaining the viability of life on Earth. The USA commercialist government, however, disagrees, and appears to think that as long as the US economy is bolstered at all costs, the Ozone layer won't matter. Agriculture in other developed countries get around the use of this chemical by using cleaner ones and better practices, and the USA government should be pressurizing its own agriculture to do the same.

5. Petrol and Oil Companies Against Climate Science

#climate_change #corruption #environmentalism #fake_lobbies #petrol_lobby #saudi_arabia #USA

Oil and petrol lobbies have spent fortunes on climate change denial since the 1980s. They put on fake conferences, produce pseudo-scientific reports that look and sound like science and they excel at manipulating social media and news outlets with slick and subtle campaigns. One technique is to fund research by a large number of scientists, and then to disregard all of the ones that come to the 'wrong' conclusions, and publish only the information that suits the petroleum industry. The intention is to convince as many people as possible that climate change isn't real, or, if it is real, that humanity isn't causing it, or that we don't need to (or can't) do anything about it, or, if it actually can be averted, that petrochemicals aren't actually a major factor, and therefore, the oil industry should be left alone.₄₆_,₄₇_,₄₈_,₄₉

It is an industrial-scale long-term misinformation campaign, funded, often collaboratively, by Exxon, Ford, Texaco, General Motors (GM), British Petroleum (BP), and DaimlerChrysler amongst others. They, along with many rich and influential oligarchs, especially from the USA and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, pour millions into corrupting politicians and contributing to outfits that are willing to deny anthropogenic climate change.₄₆_,₄₇_,₄₈_,₅₀. The money spent on this denial dwarfs any of the budgets of scientific or governmental bodies that attempt to educate the public and it represents the single biggest self-destructive endeavour our species has pursued so far.

For more, see:

"Petrol and Oil Companies Against Climate Science" by Vexen Crabtree (2023).

6. Fred Singer's Ozone Campaign, Funded by Exxon Mobil

#USA

When we first discovered that we were destroying the essential ozone layer, the oil industry reacted with denial and lies.

“Ozone blocks short-wave ultraviolet sunlight that would otherwise be a risk for all life on land. The primary culprit was CFCs, which were used as refrigerants and spray-can propellants and to clean electronic components. Billions of pounds of CFCs were being manufactured every year. In their defense, the chemical companies, through their trade organizations, began to follow the tobacco strategy. They dispensed millions of dollars in research grants and established several organizations for public relations purposes, such as the Aerosol Education Bureau. The industry promoted the idea that volcanic eruptions, not CFCs, were destroying stratospheric ozone.
In 1985, public interest and concern were stimulated by the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. Suddenly the invisible chemical changes in the stratosphere were made visible by satellite images of the Antarctic. A counternarrative was soon developed, led by Fred Singer. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Singer criticized the "ozone scare" and asserted that there is no proof of ozone depletion or of a cause-and-effect relationship with CFCs. His thesis was that the science is uncertain, replacing CFCs will be difficult and expensive, and the scientific community is corrupt and motivated by self-interest and political ideology - the same arguments later used by global warming deniers.
As late as 1995, after the Montreal Protocol had banned most manufacture of CFCs, Singer testified before Congress that the scientific concern about ozone depletion was simply "wrong." He attacked the Swedish Academy of Sciences when the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was given for analysis of stratospheric ozone chemistry. Singer described his motivation in 1989 this way: “There are probably those with hidden agendas of their own - not just to save the environment but to change our economic system. Some are socialists, some are technology hating Luddites; most have a great desire to regulate on as large a scale as possible.” In 1991 he wrote that the real agenda of environmentalists was to destroy capitalism and replace it with some sort of worldwide utopian socialism - or perhaps communism. (All taken from Merchants of Doubt, which has extensive documentation.)”
"The Storms over Climate Change" by David Morrison (2010)₄₃

Singer may have descended into paranoid nonsense in his social commentary, but his anti-science outputs had great influence - and still today, even though he died a few years ago. He received funding from Exxon Mobil for his activities, and, $5,000 a month "plus expenses" from the 'Heartland Institute", an anti-science, anti-government lobby body₅₁.

This situation of large-scale misinformation can only be rectified by a strong government that is willing to stand up to the commercial-media free for all, but, during the period covered by this article the USA has had its politics dictated by commerce rather than by long-term good sense.