Donald Trump's return to the White House has stoked fears about the future of climate action both domestically and globally. With many environmental analysts expressing alarm, the potential consequences of his presidency on climate policy are becoming clearer. Experts like Neil Grant, who directs research at Climate Analytics, highlight the serious impact Trump's dismissive stance on climate change could have, particularly as leaders convene at COP29 to tackle pressing environmental issues.
Since announcing his candidacy, Trump has repeatedly referred to climate change as a "hoax" and during his first term, he pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement—one of the most significant global accords aimed at combating climate change. Grant asserted, "Clearly, a Trump presidency is not good news for the climate and for the urgent crisis we're facing." The fears expressed stem not just from rhetoric but from anticipated policy reversals focusing on supporting fossil fuel industries.
Patrick Kinney, professor of environmental health at Boston University, is concerned about Trump’s possible objectives: slowing or even reversing progress on climate change both within the U.S. and internationally. He emphasizes the necessity for immediate action to transition toward clean energy, as the urgency of the climate crisis only grows. The environmental stakes get even higher when considering Trump’s precedent of removing the United States from international commitments.
Richard Klein, affiliated with the Stockholm Environment Institute, pointed out the chilling ramifications of another U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. He noted, "The biggest losers will be developing countries and those reliant on support to combat climate change impacts." This sentiment resonates among many who believe the U.S. has responsibilities to help poorer nations adapt and mitigate their emissions.
Observers are particularly concerned about the United States' potential withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). Klein remarked, "To withdraw from it is politically much more challenging and may involve legal ramifications." He highlighted the doubt surrounding the U.S. position, acknowledging its long-standing presence as both participant and defender of global climate goals.
Domestically, Trump’s anticipated agenda may include dismantling significant environmental regulations, repealing laws aimed at combatting climate change, and promoting fossil fuel production. Climate analysts stress the risks tied to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), implemented under President Biden. Should Trump succeed in overturning it, experts estimate it could mean releasing nearly four billion tons of excess carbon dioxide by 2030.
Grant noted, “Walking away from the IRA would cost U.S. companies around $50 billion in lost exports.” This presents not only environmental risks but economic ones. Despite practical concerns, there’s speculation about how economically viable these actions would be, especially considering the growing competitiveness of renewable energy.
Kinney reinforced the IRA's significance, referring to it as “the strongest clean energy legislation the U.S. has ever passed.” He pointed out the irony: much of its funding directed to Republican-led states. Many economists believe it would be impractical for Trump to dismantle such support entirely, even as he pushes for coal industries. Grant noted, “Walking back on clean energy transition would be economic self-sabotage.”
Further complicate matters is Trump’s seeming reluctance to recognize the rapid advancements made by renewable energy technologies. His strategies pose risks for the U.S. lagging behind global competitors, especially China. Experts have warmed of the danger of indulging fossil fuel dependency under Trump’s anticipated policies, as it could have catastrophic effects on achieving emissions targets necessary to stabilize the climate.
The bigger picture involves how Trump’s policies might set precedents for other nations. Grant cautioned, “If other countries follow Trump by leaving the Paris Agreement and rolling back policies, this could seriously undermine global climate actions.” Klein also addressed concerns about the independent path countries might take, declaring, “Countries invest in climate policy because it makes economic sense.”
For many, the stakes have never been higher as the prospect of Trump continuing to influence U.S. policy hangs heavy. The road to effectiveness against climate change demands global cooperation and commitment. Experts worry about the long-lasting repercussions of this political shift—a trend they say could delay necessary reforms and adjustments to combat pressing climate challenges.
Overall, the discussions among climate analysts reveal fears about the direction of the United States under Trump's leadership—one where supporting fossil fuels might outweigh broader scientific and economic imperatives. Analysts like Grant summarize the situation well: “Fossil fuels are not good for us. They lead to price volatility, energy crises, and air pollution.” Hope remains, though, as experts call for continued, aggressive action toward renewable energy at every possible avenue, regardless of what happens next on Capitol Hill.
