With the potential for Donald Trump to regain the presidency looming over the horizon, discussions around the future of global climate policy have intensified. Analysts and activists alike are bracing for what might come next, particularly in light of Trump's track record during his previous term.
During his presidency from 2017 to 2021, Trump made headlines across the globe by withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, which had been crafted to limit the rise of global temperatures to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. His administration's decision to pull back from this international accord triggered concerns among scientists and environmental advocates, who fear similar moves could materialize again should Trump return to power.
A recent analysis by the San Francisco-based research group Energy Innovation raises alarms over potential increases in U.S. carbon emissions, projecting they could be 1.7 gigatonnes higher by 2030 if Trump reinstates his prior environmental policies. This spike, they warn, would not only hamper U.S. efforts to combat climate change but also echo throughout global efforts. With other nations watching closely, Trump's actions could set off ripples of underwhelming commitments from allies and competitors alike.
Infamously labeling President Biden's climate initiatives as the "green New scam," Trump's blueprint includes grand plans for oil drilling and gas production. If elected again, he would likely push to dismantle the framework of the Inflation Reduction Act, which has facilitated approximately $500 billion worth of investments and yielded over 330,000 jobs since its inception. Anand Gopal, the executive director of Energy Innovation, cautions against regressing to outdated policies, emphasizing the substantial benefits derived from clean energy initiatives.
The gravity of the situation intensifies as the Democratic climate agenda faces potential reversal. Each rollback of Biden's regulations will not only jeopardize U.S. efforts but could also undermine international financial commitments targeting low-emission transitions.
Notably, climate finance remains a sticking point at the upcoming UN climate conference, COP29, slated to take place in Baku, Azerbaijan. Pacific delegates have voiced anxiety over how Trump's presidency could influence climate negotiations, particularly with their region facing some of the most severe impacts of climate change. With the U.S. as one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases, there is concern Trump’s historical withdrawal from the Paris Agreement might signal diminished commitment to global climate initiatives, frustrating efforts to secure necessary funding.
Pacific nations consistently strive for environmental justice, advocating for accountability from high-emitting countries to facilitate greater climate financing for adaptation and damage rectification—efforts rendered all the more urgent by the looming specter of Trump’s environmental approach.
At COP29, these nations will not only demand financial resources but also transparent distribution of funds to combat climate impacts. Historical promises made by developed nations to deliver $100 billion annually to support vulnerable countries have fallen short—an issue leaders like Salā George Carter have emphasized. The disparities between the polluted actions of developed nations and the modest contributions of island nations have fueled frustration among Pacific negotiators.
The experiences at past COP meetings have left delegates wary. Many express disappointment over outcomes from negotiations, claiming action is often severely limited, causing some to abandon efforts out of exasperation.
While scientific representatives express concern over possible climate modeling regressions, like breaching the 1.5-degree warming threshold, activists assert there must be continued resistance against perceived complacency. Scientific evidence and lived experiences must intertwine to guide policy frameworks. The pursuit of the 1.5-degree target is not merely aspirational. It is seen as pivotal for the survival of vulnerable island communities.
Trump's positions have instigated discussions about fossil fuels and energy production, emphasizing the potential for draconian shifts back toward promoting combustion energy sources at the expense of renewable options. This tension indicates a broader debate about whether climate action can effectively disentangle itself from political currents. Li Shuo, from the Asia Society Policy Institute, advocates for focusing on economic drivers behind energy transitions rather than continuously wrestling with unstable political landscapes.
Nevertheless, the narrative remains complicated. Even with the potential shifts associated with Trump's promises of increased oil drilling, experts caution the international community against overlooking the global trends toward electric vehicles and greener technologies, trends underscored by market realities.
Europe and China continue to lead the charge on clean technology, leaving U.S. fossil fuel industries with dwindling prospects. Gopal notes how oil demand is expected to decline over time, demonstrating the uphill battle Trump faces should he attempt to overly lean on oil-driven growth.
Despite the technological leaps achieved and the narrowing window for decisive action against climate change, the interconnectedness of economic stability, environmental health, and political accountability remain laden with challenges. Potentially returning climate regressive leadership may not only stall progress but create additional obstacles as nations attempt to unite under the common goal of mitigating climate disasters.
Under the shadow of Trump’s possible return, Pacific nations stress the importance of collaborative endeavors—whether through governmental or business avenues—focused on overcoming climate adversity. These nations serve as consistent reminders of the existential threats posed by climate change and how important it is to sit at the table during pivotal negotiations like those expected at COP29.
Ahead of this important climate summit, all eyes will be on the conversation’s outcomes and the broader implications of U.S. leadership on climate policy. The economic stakes are enormous, with reports indicating the Inflation Reduction Act could yield upwards of $5 trillion globally by 2050 if current progress and initiatives are sustained. Clearly, underlying any discussions of climate action are pressing economic imperatives, as change becomes not merely desirable but necessary for global health.
With the stakes at play, proponents of climate action continue to raise the alarm over potential future regressive policies under Trump, stressing the need to advocate for and secure achievements from prior climate agreements to protect our climate future if we hope for tangible progress moving forward.
