- Trump ‘will try to slow or reverse US and global efforts’ on climate change and the ‘biggest losers will be in the developing world and the poorest people,’ says Richard Klein of Stockholm Environment Institute
- ‘Absolutely critical that the US curb carbon emissions, since it is most responsible for causing the climate crisis,’ says environmental health expert Patrick Kinney
ISTANBUL
As leaders and scientists gather at COP29 to address the planet’s mounting environmental challenges, anxieties grow over Donald Trump’s imminent second term as US president and how his policies will impact global climate action.
Trump has been clear in dismissing the threat of climate change, repeatedly calling it a “hoax” and “scam” during his electoral campaign.
In his first term, he pulled the US, the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, out of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement – something he is widely tipped to repeat, while also rolling back other critical policies.
“Clearly, a Trump presidency is not good news for the climate, and for the urgent crisis that we’re facing at the moment,” Neil Grant, a climate and energy analyst at Climate Analytics, told Anadolu.
But exactly how bad a Trump presidency will be for global climate action and just how big of an impact it would have is yet to be seen, said Grant, who is currently attending the UN climate summit in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku.
Patrick Kinney, a professor of environmental health at the Boston University, believes that Trump “will try to slow or reverse US and global efforts” on climate change.
“We know that climate change and its impacts are accelerating now, and so it is imperative that the world take swift and aggressive action to usher in a clean energy future,” he said.
Richard Klein, a senior research fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, warned that Trump’s expected second withdrawal from the Paris deal, a legally binding treaty that obliges countries to limit global warming to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial levels, would be a major blow.
“I think the biggest losers will be in the developing world and the poorest people, who rely on support from rich countries to not only reduce their emissions, but also to prepare for the worst impacts of climate change,” Klein told Anadolu.
“If the US, and this seems likely, will no longer contribute to the global funds that exist to support poor countries and poor people, then clearly there’s going to be a shortage. There is already a gap and that gap will then become bigger.”
Under Trump, the US could also exit another international treaty, the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), which it has been a part of since 1992.
“To withdraw from that is politically much more difficult, and climate lawyers tell me that may not even be possible, or that litigation might follow an announcement to that effect,” said Klein.
The US will always, in one way or another, be part of the global climate policy discussions, either as a participant or as an observer, he added.
Domestic policies
In the US, Trump is expected to roll back environmental regulations, repeal climate friendly acts, and target agencies working on the problem.
He has also voiced his intention to support coal industries and encourage more fossil fuel production.
Among the legislation the next government could target is the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed in 2022 by outgoing President Joe Biden, which analyst Grant sees as “a really serious piece of climate legislation.”
He said the law has been “really turbocharging renewables’ deployment in the US and has the potential to unlock significant emissions reductions.”
“If Trump tries to unpick the Inflation Reduction Act and prevent some of those tax credits and grants going out the door, then that will slow the clean energy transition in the US,” Grant warned.
If it is repealed, the difference could be to the tune of 4 billion tons of excess carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, he said.
However, Grant questioned Trump’s motivation for such a step, pointing out that the Republican Party has been among the legislation’s major beneficiaries.
“Much of that funding is going to Republican states, who will fight hard to keep that money, and partly because renewables are already increasingly cost competitive. Every day, the cost advantage of renewables over fossil fuels is growing and their momentum is growing,” he said.
Recent analysis has shown that Trump walking away from the IRA would cost US companies around $50 billion in lost exports, he added.
With Trump vowing to back coal industries, Grant believes that walking back on a clean energy transition would be “an act of economic self-sabotage.”
“It’s not going to protect jobs. It’s not going to increase American competitiveness. It’s only going to continue to cede ground to China,” he said.
Kinney offered a similar view, terming the IRA “the strongest clean energy legislation that the US has ever passed.”
“It has led to major investments in clean energy infrastructure throughout the US, and 80% of the money has so far gone to Republican states. I think it will be hard for Trump to roll this back, but he may try. Also, I’m not sure how Elon Musk’s influence will affect this one way or the other,” said the expert.
Klein also raised the issue of Trump’s “damaging” plan to dismantle the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US’ main weather and climate science agency.
He emphasized that the agency remains a “world leader” in areas like seasonal weather forecasts and predicting climate disasters such as hurricanes.
If there is a hurricane or other such dangers, people “all depend enormously on the expertise that is available there,” he said.
‘Drill, baby, drill’
One of Trump’s catchphrases during this presidential campaign was “Drill, baby, drill,” as he urged major corporations to go all in for US oil reserves.
However, Grant pointed out that the only difference between Trump and other US presidents is that he is “saying it out loud.”
“But, actually, presidents of all form have been expanding oil and gas production,” he said.
“That’s completely counter to the 1.5 degree limit … Currently, governments are planning to produce twice the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is compatible with the 1.5 degree target, and the US is a serious culprit in this fossil fuel addiction.”
Trump’s stance on the issue is really worrying, said Grant, stressing the need for a strong global coalition for phasing out fossil fuels.
“Fossil fuels are not good for us. They lead to price volatility and energy crises. They lead to air pollution, which is killing millions of people around the world. They lead to geopolitical insecurity, and the sooner we can break our addiction with them, the better,” said the analyst.
Setting the wrong example
Another worry for climate experts is how US behavior could be replicated by other nations, further hindering critical action against climate change.
“If other countries follow Trump in leaving the Paris Agreement, rolling back policies, increasing our addiction to fossil fuels, this could have a really serious impact, and fatally undermine global climate action,” said Grant.
Researcher Klein believes that other countries are unlikely to follow the US, unless “it’s really for ideological reasons.”
"The cost of renewable energy, the cost of other forms of clean technology, have fallen sharply over the past few years … Countries invest in climate policy because it makes economic sense,” he said.
For Kinney, it is “absolutely critical that the US curb carbon emissions, since it is the country that has been most responsible for causing the climate crisis.”
“China and Europe understand the need for a rapid energy transition, and will profit from the new technologies and industries that will emerge,” he said.
“Under Trump, the US will fall behind in this technology race.”
