
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement requires Greenhouse Gas emissions to peak by 2025. Overcoming fossil fuels depends on strong political leadership to create and enforce the enabling conditions for major energy transitions across all sectors. The urgency of climate change should not need to be emphasized in the US, where in 2024 alone, 27 confirmed weather and climate events incurred losses each exceeding 1 billion US dollars. Yet, in the run-up to the US election, televised debates between the presidential candidates were more reminiscent of a race to the bottom on energy policy, a stark reminder of the cultural shift on climate change that has taken place over recent years.
David Williams directs the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Climate Justice Programme in New York.
It was a significant contrast to the Biden-Harris campaign in 2020, which swept to victory with the endorsement of numerous climate and environmental groups. Biden signed an order for government to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and proposed the Build Back Better Act equipped with around half a trillion USD in emissions-reducing incentives, such as electric cars, tax credits for renewable energy production, and funding for communities affected by climate change impacts. After some watering down, the renamed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) eventually passed into law in August 2022 after then-Vice President Kamala Harris cast the deciding vote in the Senate. The IRA is the most comprehensive climate legislation ever passed in the US, leading to a surge in clean energy manufacturing projects, huge increases in clean technology investment, and the creation of more than 312,000 clean energy jobs.
However, under the Biden-Harris administration, the US also became the world’s largest oil producer, ahead of both Russia and Saudi Arabia. From 2021 through 2023, the profits of oil giants BP, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and TotalEnergies exceeded a staggering 410 billion dollars — twice as much compared to a similar time period under Trump’s first term — as well as increasing its natural gas production. While increased energy demand was caused by external factors, including the economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic and European energy embargo following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden-Harris administration were complicit with the cementation of the US as a major fossil fuel provider. Moreover, while Biden did eventually attempt to ban the export of natural gas pending a review of environmental impacts, the exorbitant profits of oil executives remained untouched.
The IRA was in fact conceived in part as an attempt to catch up with China in the clean energy transition race. Now, the US will fall even further behind, losing international influence and control.
Nevertheless, things will get worse under Trump. At the outset, Trump has significantly fewer guardrails in place. There’s a clear Republican majority in the Senate, a slim majority in the House of Representatives, and the heavily conservative-leaning Supreme Court, meaning not only will the Trump-Vance administration be able to implement their outlandish campaign promises more effectively, but changes could be more long-lasting and difficult to reverse.
When it comes to climate policy, however, there may be some resistance.
Trump vowed to repeal the IRA, saying “to further defeat inflation, my plan will terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam”. However, Republican constituencies receive significantly more funding through the IRA as opposed to their Democrat counterparts. This is not by coincidence, but designed intentionally in an effort to make the IRA more resistant to political challenges down the line. A letter to Speaker Mike Johnson signed in August 2024 by Republican House Representatives asking for elements of the IRA to be exempt from any attempts at repeal is an early indication of some potential resistance. In addition, since the election, the Biden administration has worked to legally bulletproof the IRA, as well as to disburse most of the funds. Clean energy infrastructure is being built, and green employment has been created, making it uncertain whether Trump will be able to secure the necessary majority in the House of Congress to fully repeal the IRA. What may be more likely is a partial repeal, or executive actions designed to impede the full implementation of the IRA, chipping away at tax credits, or withholding some of its loans and grants.
It is also unclear how Trump will outperform Biden as a friend to the fossil fuel industry and deliver on his campaign promise of “drill, baby, drill”. Under Trump’s first term, regulatory rollbacks not only dismantled rules governing clean air, water, natural habitats, and toxic pollutants, but also opened up vast areas of protected land for fossil fuel exploration and expansion. If the proposed cuts to government agencies are extended to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it could have a detrimental influence on environmental and climate regulation in the US, and allow for more sweeping regulatory rollbacks.
However, while Trump may believe otherwise, the economics of the global green energy transition are not determined in the White House. The average cost of renewable energy is cheaper, and costs will continue to decrease with increasing investments by other governments, in particular China. The IRA was in fact conceived in part as an attempt to catch up with China in the clean energy transition race. Now, the US will fall even further behind, losing international influence and control. Trump’s proposed tariffs would risk setting the US back even further.
It is not only national climate policy that could be impacted by the destructive force of the Trump-Vance administration. In Trump’s first term, he pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement. This time, Trump has indicated he would pull the US out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) altogether. The UNFCCC is the underlying legal structure of the Paris Agreement, and re-joining would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate (highly unlikely given the current balance of forces). There is, however, some legal uncertainty around whether and how the US would be able to leave the convention itself.
There is also a real danger, given the sharp rise in right-wing authoritarian governments, that the exit of the US could precipitate a knock-on effect leading to other governments leaving the climate change negotiations.
The election of Trump less than one week before the start of climate change negotiations in Baku in November 2024 raised significant concerns as to how a meaningful outcome might be reached. As those more seasoned attendees of climate change negotiations commented, however, the US has never been an innovative force in the UNFCCC process, acting much more as a blocker and impediment to any progressive outcomes. Nonetheless, for a multilateral process that draws much of its strength from its broad international participation, it would be extremely damaging to its credibility were the world’s largest oil producer and second-highest greenhouse gas emitter to leave the very convention aimed at preventing climate change.
In the run-up to the climate change negotiations in Belem later this year, each country is to submit a climate action plan to the UNFCCC, known as the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The NDCs illustrate how every country is taking emissions-reducing measures to stay within the 1.5°C temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement, as well as taking measures to protect vulnerable communities from the impacts of climate change. The success of NDCs depends on climate finance, which are intended to be provided by industrialized nations. Not having the US as a key provider of international climate finance may prolong the dependence on fossil fuels in many regions of the world, putting 1.5°C out of reach for good.
There is also a real danger, given the sharp rise in right-wing authoritarian governments, that the exit of the US could precipitate a knock-on effect leading to other governments leaving the climate change negotiations. This could already be observed last year in Baku, where the Argentinian delegation was recalled by Trump’s “favourite president” Javier Milei. However, it was unclear whether the withdrawal would be permanent, as right-wing populist agitators were mulling of the question whether they could cause more chaos within or outside of the negotiations.
As we have learned, it is sometimes difficult to discern what Trump says from what will actually happen. Going forward, we should gain a clearer picture. Among these troubling political developments, it will be up to civil society organizations and grassroots movements to resist. Their success depends not only on unity and solidarity, but on how effectively the lies, vitriol, absurdities, and repugnance can be repudiated.