With the election of Donald Trump looming on the horizon, the climate change discussion has entered another tumultuous phase. Activists are on high alert, knowing the stakes are higher than ever. Trump, who has frequently dismissed climate change as a hoax, is likely to roll back many of the climate policies set forth by the previous administration. This prospect has sent shockwaves through climate advocacy groups, prompting them to rethink their strategies.
Bill McKibben, one of the leading voices in the climate movement for over thirty years, recently shared his views on what the future may hold for climate activism. His organization, Third Act, is pivoting toward local and state-level advocacy, targeting often overlooked state agencies and commissions which play significant roles in energy transition.
Trump’s electoral campaign critiques include threats to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, dismantle regulatory frameworks, and systematically target the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—Biden’s flagship climate legislation. Given Trump's established track record of undermining climate initiatives, the movement has no illusions about the challenges they will face.
McKibben called the current environment “grim” but emphasized the importance of resilient grassroots efforts. He points to the need for climate activists to pivot their focus on local engagement. His organization is already active at utility-level discussions and regulatory meetings, seeking to create substantial local-level energy transformations.
Locally baked solutions are also part of the bigger picture. With top executives at Tesla exploring the launch of affordable electric vehicles, the fight for climate action needs to reach everyone, not just those who can afford premium green technology. “These are places no one has engaged much with for decades,” McKibben noted about state-level agencies, which frequently shape the energy conversation.
Meanwhile, Leah Stokes, political scientist and key architect of Biden's clean energy achievements, weighed in on the possible ramifications of Trump’s return. “The IRA is protected by the companies benefitting from it, but the tax credits face significant threats,” she remarked, referencing Trump’s promise to cut unspent funds under the IRA.
Stokes acknowledged the existence of corporations invested heavily in the energy transition. This was especially true as many have built jobs and business models around renewable energy investments supported by the IRA. “Corporate lobbying may help keep parts of the IRA alive,” Stokes has commented, indicating these forces could provide some resistance against the anticipated political whirlwind.
Beyond the immediate threats to federal climate policy, one serious concern is the impact on environmental justice initiatives. Many of the environmental spending programs explicitly target disadvantaged communities, and those vulnerable sections of society could bear the brunt of the cuts. Recently, Stokes expressed unease about the future of Community Change Grants, which intend to assist these communities with initiatives aimed at pollution reduction.
Despite these uncertainties, the issue remains complex. Some see the persistent interest and investment from energy companies as potential lifelines, sustaining the push toward cleaner energy sources even without explicit federal support. Both Stokes and McKibben share cautious optimism, noting the interest from both corporate and grassroots levels could maintain momentum for progress.
Elon Musk’s role adds another layer to this narrative. Once known as the go-to voice for climate change within the transportation industry, Musk has recently cast doubt on the urgency surrounding climate issues. This shift could influence not only Trump’s administration but potentially allow Tesla to carve out more advantageous economic conditions for itself.
Stokes pointed out how stakeholders can still maintain advocacy through strategic depolarization. The push for climate initiatives may take on different forms, influenced more by corporate interests than political exchanges. If this trend continues, it could signal the consolidation of clean energy advocacy under unconventional leadership.
Among Republican lawmakers, there has been growing recognition of the importance of clean energy for their constituents. This political edge may lead to unexpected avenues for dialogue where bipartisan collaboration becomes possible, particularly as jobs associated with clean energy are gaining traction.
But the road remains rocky. For the climate movement, the next four years will be about more than just resisting. It will involve forging new paths and maintaining momentum against overwhelming odds. The next chapter is one of renewed adaptability and strategic engagement at every level of policy-making.
With both local initiatives gaining ground and corporate interests presenting as unlikely allies, could this be a time for new collaborations? The climate movement, like nature itself, must evolve. The real question is whether it can bloom again under potentially hostile political conditions.
Regardless of the many hurdles facing the climate community, many activists, including McKibben and Stokes, continue to hope for regenerative strategies. They recognize the urgency of addressing climate change and anticipate finding new ways to penetrate the political environment with empowered, community-driven efforts. The stakes have never been higher, and neither has the resilience of the climate movement.