The US anti-climate juggernaut is worrying, but several factors could mitigate a potential catastrophe.

Donald Trump’s comments during his 2024 campaign trail, together with his actions during his first presidency, suggest doom and gloom for the global climate agenda – and a severe retardation of climate action during his upcoming second term.

But new factors determine the global landscape compared to 2016, offering a more nuanced set of possibilities for climate action.

Trump announced the United States’ (US) withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2017. The official exit came in November 2020, just before the end of his first term. Although President Joe Biden’s administration soon reversed the departure, some damage was done. A second withdrawal could be devastating.

Trump also appointed climate change sceptics to key positions within the US administration and beyond. He picked Scott Pruitt as Environmental Protection Agency head and nominated David Malpass – famous for denying the scientific consensus on the link between fossil fuels and global warming – as president of the World Bank. The bank is a key body expected to support an international movement to a lower carbon economy.

In 2020, the Brookings Institution counted 74 actions of Trump’s administration that weakened environmental protection in the US, driven largely by the America First Energy Plan. This was primarily a package to rescue and empower the US fossil fuel value chain. Measures included reopening coal mines, removing oil exploration and drilling restrictions, and reducing climate and environmental regulations.

Will Trump’s second presidency – bolstered with a suite of gains he didn’t have before – deliver more of the same?

His first gain was winning the popular vote and the electoral college vote. Second, the Presidency, Senate and Congress are all under Republican control. This creates a super-highway for legislation, policy and budget approvals that are not necessarily aligned with global sustainability.

The third gain is that preparation for this Republican presidency has been high. In addition to the role of Trump’s team and conservative think tanks, there is also Project 2025, which lists as a priority ‘unleash[ing] American energy production to reduce energy prices.’

Project 2025 policy documents call for ending research funding on climate change, and dismantling or downsizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency. These agencies have become increasingly prominent as the US experiences high levels of climate-related disasters.

Damaging possibilities include reversing official policy to decarbonise America, decreasing public investments in climate change research, balkanising or reducing the size of federal and other institutions managing climate impacts, and withdrawing from related multilateral and other commitments.

If launched, the US anti-climate juggernaut, driven by its geopolitical influence and economic power, might push the world towards catastrophic climate scenarios. The US will also reduce foreign aid and assistance programmes related to climate change, with Africa as a potential victim.

But there are important mitigating factors.

First, the domestic dividends associated with the US’ green investments are real. The flagbearer is the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with its US$370-billion boost for investment in green technology. In the short term, most benefits from the IRA are being accrued to Republicans. Clean energy investments in Republican congressional districts stand at US$268.5-billion, compared to US$77.4-billion in Democrat-controlled districts.

The US Treasury indicated in its March 2024 report that the projected benefit from the IRA would be US$5-trillion by 2050, as a combination of global economic benefits, decreased pollution and an increase in domestic health and productivity.

The projected benefit for 2024 alone is estimated at US$137-million. Forbes says that by 2030, the IRA could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43% compared to 2005 levels. It could create 1.3-million jobs and avoid 4 500 premature deaths annually by 2030.

The second mitigating factor is that the US has had a plethora of weather- and climate-related disasters that have been costly in terms of the economy, threats to the social fabric, and loss of life. Official data indicates that since 1980, these disasters have resulted in 16 768 deaths and cost the economy US$2.785-trillion.

Third, the weight of decarbonisation in the global tussle for geopolitical superiority is significant. Europe has already pegged its future economic security in the European Green Deal. The US’ biggest economic competitor is China, which has invested extensively in renewable energy and electric vehicles. China’s green growth has been a major boost to its ascendency economically.

Both overt and covert carbon-based trade barriers are already being developed at pace. The most prominent is the European Union Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.

The International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2024 states that faster expansion of clean energy is key to reducing fragilities associated with geopolitical risk. The report also points to a 2030 tipping point, when electricity production from low-emission sources will overtake fossil fuels.

Then there is the Elon Musk factor. A big Trump supporter and clearly a person of influence around the president-elect, Musk is an electric vehicle pioneer. Tesla is the world’s largest electric car company, with more than 10 times larger market capitalisation than its closest competitor.

Musk is also a major global player in battery technology and a strong proponent of low-carbon energy solutions. Could this soften Trump’s position on fossil fuels?

The likely scenario is that the beginning of the 47th US administration will see big gestures in line with the America First Energy, pro-fossil fuel doctrine. This may include initiating a second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Early push-back on environmental regulations is almost certain.

Equally likely is a subsequent shift to a nuanced narrative highlighting the need for decarbonisation as renewable energy and low-carbon industrialisation become essential in global economic competition – a change that can’t come soon enough.

Written by Dhesigen Naidoo, Senior Research Associate, Climate, ISS Pretoria