The outcome of the November 5th presidential race will be pivotal on numerous fronts, influencing everything from international security and trade to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. However, one crucial aspect that often goes unmentioned is the profound impact this election could have on climate action. The prospect of a second Trump presidency has left the climate sector in the U.S. and around the world feeling anxious. If his second term is like his first, any rollback of environmental policies or dismantling of critical climate initiatives could trigger a profound global climate setback.
In a 2024 campaign video on energy policy, Trump declared that ‘we will again get out of Paris’, referring to the Paris Agreement—a landmark international climate accord signed by 195 countries in 2015. During his previous term, Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, citing economic concerns, and formally exited in 2020. President Biden reversed this decision shortly after taking office in 2021, rejoining the accord with even more ambitious goals: a 50-52% reduction in emissions by 2030.
In line with his longstanding climate scepticism, including calling climate change a ‘hoax’ during his 2016 campaign, Trump also rolled back over 125 environmental regulations intended to curb emissions during his term. At a rally in March 2022, Trump ridiculed concerns about climate change and the threat of rising sea levels: ‘And then you have people like [US climate envoy] John Kerry focusing on the climate! . . I heard that recently—while [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is making threats, he’s worried about the ocean rising by a tiny fraction over the next few hundred years’.
So far, Trump’s 2024 campaign has largely dismissed climate action, framing it as a costly issue that would lead to higher taxes, increased prices, and a threat to national interests. He has pledged to end what he considers wasteful spending that, in his view, is fuelling inflation and raising energy costs. Trump aims to redirect unspent federal funds from green initiatives toward critical infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, and dams, instead of what he calls ‘meaningless Green New Scam ideas.’ At various rallies, Trump has also vowed to ‘drill, baby, drill’, promising to accelerate oil exploration. Reports suggest he has privately assured oil executives that, in exchange for campaign donations, he would cut their costs by reducing taxes and rolling back environmental regulations.
Under a possible Trump administration, President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which has directed hundreds of billions of dollars into green-energy initiatives and pollution-control measures, faces potential cutbacks or even defunding. Trump has pledged to repurpose climate-related IRA funds, and experts suggest that even if Congress does not fully repeal the IRA, Trump could still alter it significantly. For example, he could adjust Treasury Department rules around IRA tax credits, changing project eligibility to benefit certain industries favoured by special interests. There’s also a high likelihood that he would freeze or redirect unallocated funds, which would pause billions in funding intended for green energy and climate projects.
A Bloomberg report suggests that Biden administration officials well aware of this risk are working to swiftly distribute the money: the Energy Department has rushed to commit nearly $60 billion out of a pool of $80 billion by the end of the year. But the risk is apparent: A state-backed program that allocated around $200 billion in loans to support clean technologies which has been struggling to secure private financing may be at risk, as less than a quarter of its necessary funds had been approved by this past summer.
Another potential Trump target is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule requiring oil companies to replace equipment prone to methane leaks, which Trump could rewrite or eliminate along with any methane-emission fees. Trump has also vowed to end what he calls the ‘EV mandate’, referring to EPA standards pushing for a shift to electric and hybrid vehicles. He has openly criticized EV tax credits, asserting in an August interview that these and other incentives are generally ineffective. Trump’s hostility to wind energy is well-known, and a second term could significantly harm the industry, which often relies heavily on government support and permits. He has vowed to stop offshore wind on ‘day one’ if re-elected.
Trump’s commitment to fossil fuels was apparent in his August rally speech, where he promised to protect coal-fired power plants from closure and open ‘dozens and dozens more’. He also intends to repeal regulations that limit carbon emissions from coal plants to lower energy costs and would use executive authority to reverse Biden’s restrictions on new licenses for exporting liquefied natural gas. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 report, seen as a roadmap for a potential second Trump term, explicitly advocates for ramping up fossil-fuel production, dismantling government climate-research programs, reducing funding for clean technology R&D, cutting disaster response funding, ending the National Flood Insurance Program, and removing the forecasting responsibilities from the National Weather Service.
Internationally, a new Trump presidency could deeply impact US climate diplomacy. Trump’s resistance to the Paris Agreement would weaken global climate efforts, setting a troubling example. A second Trump term might even lead the United States to exit the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the foundation of international climate cooperation. If the United States withdraws, other countries could use it as justification to scale back their own climate commitments, further stalling critical targets and hindering global progress.
As the world’s second-largest emitter, an American retreat from climate action would embolden other governments to prioritize immediate economic interests over long-term environmental goals, potentially reversing years of progress. This scenario could dismantle not only past achievements but also threaten the framework essential for future cooperation on climate change, threatening decades of work. In essence, the effects of Trump’s leadership would extend well beyond U.S. borders, jeopardizing global climate initiatives, heightening environmental risks, and amplifying the climate crisis.
Despite Trump’s strong rhetoric on climate denialism, any rollback on climate policies might be more symbolic than practical, as dismantling current climate initiatives—particularly the Inflation Reduction Act—would face considerable obstacles. Republican leaders in multiple states are likely to resist such efforts, given the IRA’s broad economic impact: A whooping $450 billion in private investment has flowed into the US as a result of the law.
The IRA has delivered substantial benefits across the country, especially in Republican-dominated red states where it has generated significant job growth and spurred investments in clean energy. With billions already allocated through grants and long-term tax credits, the IRA has fuelled manufacturing in sectors like solar energy, electric vehicles, and sustainable aviation fuel. Analysts estimate that nearly 90% of this capital has flowed into Republican-held congressional districts, especially in the South and Midwest, where land, labour, and energy costs are lower. Republican lawmakers like Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia and Congressman Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee have expressed their commitment to preserving the IRA’s momentum, signalling that many Republicans may stand against any efforts to dismantle it.
Further complicating matters, Trump’s campaign has garnered support from prominent backers in Silicon Valley, including climate-conscious figures like Elon Musk. For Tesla and similar companies with substantial investments in green technologies, a rollback in climate policy poses real financial risks. While these tech leaders might appreciate Trump’s pro-business stance, they also have significant financial interests tied to clean technology. They are unlikely to passively accept an anti-climate agenda that threatens their profits and their vision of a greener economy. As such, the implications of a Trump presidency on climate policy could be less straightforward than they initially appear, reflecting a broader struggle between political ideology and economic pragmatism.
So, as we wait to see if ‘Trump 2.0’ is more than a hypothetical, the real question lingers: Will his climate stance translate into serious policy, or remain a rhetorical flourish? In the end, a second Trump administration may find it far harder to actually put the brakes on climate action than to merely talk of slamming them.
Image Credit: White House