Donald Trump’s return is a blow to global response to the climate crisis

The coming return of Donald Trump to the White House has been greeted with dismay by those advocating for scaling up climate action and pivoting quickly from carbon-polluting fossil fuels to clean energy.
Having a climate-denier as US president undermines essential efforts to get big-emitting economies to decarbonise at pace as global warming is moving to a more turbulent phase – happening more quickly and more unpredictably. This is affecting every corner of the planet – and particularly on Trump’s doorstep. He was in awe of the power of the recent Hurricane Helene, but didn’t dare consider why it was so destructive.
During the election campaign, Trump repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” and “one of the great scams of all time”. He promised to stop spending on clean energy, abolish “insane” incentives for Americans to drive electric cars, scrap various environmental rules and unleash a “drill, baby, drill” wave of new oil and gas exploration.
There is every indication he will pull the US out of the Paris Agreement again (this time it will take a year instead of three), joining just three other countries – Iran, Libya and Yemen – outside the landmark climate deal. It is the only global mechanism to agree collective action and ease devastating impacts on Africa and the Global South, the locations of countries – unlike the US – that are least responsible for what soon could be runaway climate change.
Trump is also reported to be under pressure to pull the US out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for the first time, but this could be more difficult. It is the UN process for negotiating agreement to combat “dangerous human interference with the climate system”, mainly by curbing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Trump often refers to wanting “the cleanest air and the cleanest water”, but has a record of deprioritising climate accountability tied into detestation of environmental regulation. During his first term, he sought to silence government scientists and undermined federal environmental agencies, often giving control to lobbyists from regulated industries, notably Big Oil.
“Trump’s the worst president for the environment in American history,” Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian and professor at Rice University, told the New York Times. “A second term will be brutal. He is going to go full throttle on having the trophy of shutting down the green movement and replacing it with an older-style gasoline and coal-fired America.”
[ Global warming: 2024 will be world’s hottest on record, EU scientists sayOpens in new window ]
Demonisation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a global leader in its field, reveals a lot about Trump. The notorious policy document Project 2025 drawn up by some of his closest advisers calls NOAA “a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry”, adding that the agency “should be broken up and downsized”.
On taking office, President Joe Biden restored many of the 100 environmental rules and policies killed by the Trump administration. There is every indication Trump will not only erase those regulations again but also try to make sure that they can’t be revived. Critically, he and his allies have mapped out a plan to dismantle the legal and scientific foundations of the federal government’s authority to regulate the environment, particularly on climate change.
Against the odds, Biden ushered in the Inflation Reduction Act in a hyper-partisan environment, a multibillion dollar fund to scale up renewable energy and EV deployment, which is a globally significant effort to reduce emissions and increase the use of wind and solar energy, battery storage, “clean hydrogen” and sustainable aviation fuels.
It is reinforced by grants, loans and tax incentives in a package set to total hundreds of billions of dollars. No Republican voted for it.
While GOP leaders vowed to repeal it, there are indications it will not be rowed back. Funding has been concentrated in conservative-leaning red states, while its ability to leverage huge amounts of private investment is proven. It has been good for big and small businesses, and has catalysed innovation.
Its significance was outlined by Jackie Wong, a senior adviser to the NRDC Action Fund, a political advocacy group that endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris: “This isn’t just about climate. This is also about public health and about jobs and about revitalising American manufacturing.”
[ Donald Trump’s biggest danger to the world could be his dismissiveness about climate changeOpens in new window ]
There is concern, however, that Trump may alter the terms of treasury department guidance on which projects are eligible for supports. The new administration could push through guidance to skew the credit to more polluting fossil fuel projects, according to analysis by Inside Climate News.
Kate Gordon, the former adviser to US energy secretary Jennifer Granholm, has noted the Inflation Reduction Act was designed with elections in mind, with key elements “meant to make it popular and durable”. She compared it to former president Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation, “attacked for years but [which] has remained in place”.
On the global stage, Trump at the helm in the US will inevitably embolden oil-rich states, including autocratic countries that invariably stall progress at Cop climate conferences hosted by the UN. It will cast a shadow over negotiations at Cop29 in Azerbaijan due to begin next week. It will undermine efforts, especially in the EU, to build energy security on the back of renewables and electrification across their economy. Already, oil shares have shot up and renewable energy stocks have been knocked back.
A Trump victory could lead to an additional 4 billion tonnes of US emissions by 2030, Carbon Brief analysis revealed in March. This extra 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 would cause global climate damages exceeding $900 billion (€832 billion), based on the latest US government valuations. This is equivalent to the combined annual emissions of the EU and Japan, or the combined annual total of the world’s 140 lowest-emitting countries.
[ The Irish Times view on the aftermath of the hurricane in Florida: a storm of disinformationOpens in new window ]
The global temperature implications were spelt out by one of the architects of the Paris pact, Laurence Tubiana, who said on X: “To be clear: the US election result is a blow in the fight against the climate crisis. The window to limit warming to 1.5 degrees is closing – these next four years are critical. But let’s not despair. The Paris Agreement has proven resilient, stronger than any one country’s policies.”
Equally, the shift to clean energy is gathering momentum – the use of fossil fuels is set to peak before 2030. As climate campaigner and former US vice-president Al Gore said, the process is “unstoppable at this point”. The direction of travel for the world as a whole is now set; “the only question is how fast this transition can occur”. The pace, he added, would be affected by the next US president.
There is an outstanding issue the rest of the world must consider. It was raised by former US climate envoy John Kerry during a recent visit to Ireland: “The question is not will we – all of us – come to live in low-carbon, no-carbon economies. We will. The question is: will we get there in time to avoid the worst consequences of the crisis?”
In such circumstances, reduced ambition, rowback on commitments and withdrawing from international climate treaties is not what the world needs right now.