3 major climate consequences of Trump’s election

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory, climate activists and the broader sustainability community are understandably alarmed. The new administration’s policies will constitute a significant setback on climate progress. Four more years under Trump will likely put the global climate target of 1.5°C out of reach, making devastating climate impacts more likely. However, the sea change in U.S. policy could also create dynamics that could mitigate consequences and reveal unexpected resilience in domestic and international climate action.

This article analyzes three major impacts of the Trump presidency on US and global climate policy: climate reporting and regulation, international climate commitments, and the transition to renewable energy. Each area will guide you through the significant challenges and potential positives that may emerge in the months ahead.

1. Climate reporting and regulation

The 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 associated climate policies. Under Trump, we will likely see renewed federal resistance to corporate sustainability efforts, creating obstacles for institutions that push for greener business models and collaborate with international peers. In terms of regulation, initiatives such as the SEC’s climate disclosure rule and the Federal Reserve’s climate stress testing exercises could be suspended or severely scaled back.

This pushback will allow critics of pro-climate policies, particularly Republican attorneys general, to more aggressively target financial institutions committed to net-zero emissions goals. Additionally, states implementing progressive climate standards, such as California, could face increased pressure from federal authorities, which could hinder widespread adoption of climate disclosure requirements.

The good sides:

Despite these federal setbacks, the push for climate transparency and accountability will not go away. California’s significant influence constitutes an essential counterbalance, as seen previously with its energy efficiency standards imposed on automobile manufacturers. State laws like SB 253, SB 261 and Newly passed SB 219 will continue to hold companies accountable for their disclosures on their emissions and climate risks. Additionally, large U.S. companies operating internationally will still be subject to reporting requirements under the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which will require detailed climate and development information. sustainable for multinational companies operating in Europe. Even without federal support, the private sector will continue to find climate reporting high on the agenda.

2. International climate commitments

The challenges:

Trump’s election will significantly limit America’s role in international climate agreements. His well-known climate skepticism probably signals a rejection of Paris Agreementas during his previous administration. This withdrawal not only reduces America’s own climate commitments, but also undermines the motivation of other large emitters, such as China and India, to meet their commitments. According to an analysis of Rhodium Groupa Trump-led rollback of Biden’s green policies could generate around 4 billion tonnes of additional CO₂._team by 2030 and 25 billion tonnes by 2050. Such increases could explode the world’s meager carbon budget and push the world beyond its 1.5°C limit.

Beyond domestic emissions, Trump’s opposition to international cooperation could have a larger effect on the trajectory of global emissions. Returning to its “America First” climate philosophy risks isolating the United States from a growing coalition of nations fighting climate change. This stance could damage diplomatic relations and weaken multinational efforts to reduce emissions from other biggest emitters such as China and India.

The positive side:

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

3. The renewable energy transition

The challenge:

The Trump administration is expected to hinder the transition to renewable energy in a variety of ways. An expected step will be to destroy Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the cornerstone of recent US climate policy encouraging the development of renewable energy. Along with this, there could be an increase in oil and gas leasing on federal lands, a change that would directly benefit the fossil fuel industry. Such actions would slow the growth of the U.S. clean energy sector, putting the country at a competitive disadvantage as other regions, including China and Europe, advance low-carbon technologies. green investments and renewable capacities.

Federal backpedaling risks ceding technological leadership to international competitors. In 2022 alone, renewable energy represented approximately 80% of new global electricity generation capacitya clear sign of the inevitable dynamics of the energy transition. A weakened U.S. presence in this sector could have long-term economic consequences, making America less attractive to investors in the booming areas of green energy and infrastructure.

The positive side:

Despite anticipated resistance from the federal government, renewable energy growth in the United States remains more resilient than it initially appears. The economic benefits of renewable energy have spurred adoption in Republican-leaning states, including Texas and Iowawhich are today major producers of wind and solar energy. These states recognize the local job creation, lower energy costs, and economic stability that investments in renewable energy bring, making it unlikely that they will abandon their commitments.

Surprisingly, US fossil fuel production has remained relatively constant across administrations, with world leading oil and gas production under both Democratic and Republican leaders. This continuity highlights that market forces, more than federal policies, often dictate trends in energy production. Although Trump may de-prioritize green energy incentives, the economic case for renewable energy persists, providing a strong foundation for continued growth.

Looking towards 2025

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

Ultimately, the United States finds itself at a crossroads: If it wants to remain competitive in the global economy, it must not ignore the potential of green technologies. The tone that may appeal to the new administration is that continued investment is not about the environment, but about maintaining America’s economic position in a changing world.

As other countries move toward cleaner, more sustainable futures, Trump’s choices could make or break his competitiveness on the international stage. If America wants to be at the forefront of tomorrow’s economy, it’s not a question of red or blue, but green.