Donald Trump and the climate consequences of the 2024 US election

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory, climate activists and the wider sustainability community are alarmed. The policies of the next administration will be a significant obstacle to climate progress. Four more years of Trump are likely to put the global climate target of 1.5°C out of reach, making devastating climate impacts more likely. However, the radical shift in US policy could also bring about dynamics that could soften the consequences and reveal unexpected resilience in national and international climate action.

This article explores the three main impacts of the Trump presidency on US and global climate policy: climate reporting and regulation, international climate commitments, and the renewable energy transition. Each area will guide you through both important and potential challenges that may arise in the coming months.

1. Climate reporting and regulation

Challenges:

The Trump administration is expected to make sweeping changes that will directly affect climate reporting and regulation. The first major area of ​​concern is the continued politicization of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria and related climate policies. Under Trump, we are likely to see renewed federal resistance to corporate sustainability efforts, creating barriers for institutions pushing for greener business models and collaborating with their international peers. In terms of regulation, initiatives like the SEC’s climate disclosure rule and the Federal Reserve’s climate stress testing exercises could be rolled back or severely curtailed.

This rollback will empower those critical of climate change policies, particularly Republican attorneys general, to more aggressively target financial institutions committed to net zero goals. Additionally, states that implement progressive climate standards, such as California, may face increased pressure from federal authorities, which could prevent widespread adoption of climate disclosure requirements.

Silver clothes:

Despite these federal obstacles, the push for climate transparency and accountability will not go away. California’s significant influence is a critical counterweight, as seen previously with its fuel efficiency standards for automakers. State laws like SB 253, SB 261 and the newly passed SB 219 will continue to hold companies accountable for their emissions and climate risk disclosures. Additionally, large US companies operating internationally will continue to face reporting requirements under the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which will require extensive climate and sustainability information for multinational firms. operating in Europe. Even without federal support, the private sector will continue to find climate reporting on the agenda.

2. International climate commitments

Challenges:

Trump’s election will greatly limit America’s role in international climate agreements. His well-known climate skepticism is likely to signal a repudiation of the Paris Agreement, as during his previous administration. This withdrawal not only reduces America’s climate commitments, but also undermines the motivation of other major emitters, such as China and India, to keep their promises. According to an analysis by the Rhodium Group, a Trump-led rollback of Biden’s green policies could contribute about 4 billion tons of additional CO₂._Eq emissions by 2030 and 25 billion tonnes by 2050. Such increases could swell the world’s tight carbon budget and push the world beyond its 1.5°C limit.

Beyond domestic emissions, Trump’s opposition to international cooperation may have a larger effect on the global trajectory of emissions. Returning to his climate “America First” philosophy risks isolating the US from a growing coalition of nations tackling climate change. That stance could damage diplomatic relations and weaken multinational efforts to curb emissions among other biggest emitters such as China and India.

The silver lining:

However, international climate action has evolved significantly since Trump’s last term. During his previous withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, US cities, states and companies quickly mobilized under the We’re Still In initiative, signaling their commitment to climate action regardless of federal support. Expect similar responses now, as state-level policies and international initiatives remain increasingly resilient. Moreover, the global consensus around net zero, since COP26 in Glasgow, is now more deeply rooted around the world. America’s absence from the negotiating table will slow progress, but the momentum for decarbonization is much broader and deeper than it was in 2016.

3. Renewable Energy Transition

Challenge:

The Trump administration is expected to hinder the renewable energy transition in several ways. One anticipated step will be the repeal of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a cornerstone of recent US climate policy that promotes renewable energy development. In addition, there could be an increase in oil and gas leases on federal lands, a change that will directly benefit the fossil fuel industry. Such actions would slow the growth of the US clean energy sector, putting the country at a competitive disadvantage as other regions, notably China and Europe, surge ahead in low-carbon technology, green investment and renewable capacities.

Federal support risks leaving technological leadership to international competitors. In 2022 alone, renewables accounted for approximately 80% of new global power generation capacity, a clear sign of the unstoppable momentum of the energy transition. A weakened US presence in this sector could lead to long-term economic consequences, making America less attractive to investors in the emerging fields of green energy and infrastructure.

The silver lining:

Despite anticipated federal resistance, renewable energy growth across the U.S. remains more resilient than it might initially appear. The economic advantages of renewables have spurred adoption in Republican-leaning states, particularly Texas and Iowa, which are now major producers of wind and solar power. These countries recognize the job creation, lower energy costs and economic stability that renewable investments bring, making it impossible for them to abandon their commitments.

Surprisingly, US fossil fuel production has remained relatively constant across administrations, with the world’s leading oil and gas production under both Democratic and Republican leadership. This continuity underscores that market forces, more than federal policies, often dictate energy production trends. While Trump may deprioritize green energy incentives, the economic rationale for renewables continues, providing a sound basis for continued growth.

Looking ahead to 2025

Trump’s presidency undoubtedly complicates America’s climate trajectory, but the picture is not entirely bleak. State-level policies, international action and market dynamics offer hope that momentum towards a low-carbon future will continue, albeit at a slower pace.

Ultimately, the US stands at a crossroads: if it wants to remain competitive in the global economy, it must not ignore the potential of green technologies. Perhaps one tone that will appeal to the next administration is that continued investment is not an environmental issue, but about maintaining America’s economic standing in a changing world.

As other nations race toward a cleaner, more sustainable future, Trump’s choices could make or break his competitiveness on the international stage. If America is to be at the forefront of tomorrow’s economy, it cannot be about red or blue, but about green.