The comeback of Donald Trump to the White House has been met with polarizing reactions, depending on one’s country or political leanings. But there is one undeniable loser of his victory: global climate action. 

The only question is by how much.

Higher emissions?

Expect Trump to once more ease environmental regulations on industries, loosen vehicle fuel efficiency standards, and prefer coal, oil, and gas over renewable energy (RE). His allies have called for another withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and even the UNFCCC; the latter would effectively remove the country from the climate negotiations. 

However, the country’s emissions did not significantly increase from 2017 to 2021, although this period also included the COVID-induced lockdowns. Yet this decrease in climate pollution was not enough to slow down or reverse the increase in global temperatures. 

Even if all countries fulfill their current climate pledges, the world would still warm between 2.6°C and 3.1°C. This places even more pressure for COP30 in Brazil to deliver on hastening just energy transition and mobilizing disbursable finance, especially after the underwhelming outcomes for either at the Baku negotiations last November.

Meanwhile, RE and electric vehicle technologies have become more economically-viable compared to years ago, with strong support from some states within the country. In addition, RE provides the cheapest new electricity in almost every country, which makes any economic case by Trump’s government against renewables more difficult to substantiate. 

Yet every emission mitigated counts, especially from the highest polluters. The USA emitted 11% of global GHGs last year, trailing only China. With 2024 being the first year with global warming more than 1.5°C and without scaling up decarbonization, developing countries are likely to face even more extreme impacts, ranging from super-typhoons to wildfires, from higher sea levels to biodiversity loss.    

Higher price?

A potential departure of the USA from the climate negotiations is unlikely to make the already-slow process any slower, considering all the factors that go beyond one country. This move would also turn it into an observer, resulting in a loss of significant influence to shape the climate discourse under said treaty.       

The likely biggest impact of Trump’s return to power would be the decrease in funding for climate-related solutions, especially at the global level. This would include the country’s contributions to the UNFCCC itself, which is already underfunded in recent years. It would also mean lower resources for global financing mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage. 

Developing countries were forced to play “bad deal or no deal” in Baku, the latest indicator of insufficient climate finance. Even more restrictions on finance, technologies, and means for capacity-building would limit their ability to reduce emissions, adapt to worsening impacts, and avert loss and damage. Once again, it would be the likes of indigenous peoples, women, youth, and other vulnerable groups that would endure the brunt of these impacts.

This could not come at a worse time; countries are expected to present more ambitious targets and plans in their NDCs at COP30. Developed nations like the USA should not only raise their own mitigation targets, but also lead the way in financing RE. 

A report by IRENA reveals that RE investments in 2023 was barely one-third of the USD1.5 trillion needed to triple RE by 2030. Investments in energy efficiency must increase seven-fold to achieve the worldwide commitment of doubling energy efficiency by the end of the decade and avoid another broken promise made at the negotiations.

More misrepresentation?

Yet Trump and his allies have no intention of spearheading a just energy transition at the global level or in their own country. With climate denial becoming less impactful to voters that are experiencing extreme impacts first-hand, they have shifted to centering their rhetoric towards framing fossil fuels as necessary for energy security. 

His camp has exaggerated or made false claims about the impacts of solar and wind on biodiversity, while ignoring the impacts of coal, oil, and gas at an even bigger scale. Such narratives are similar to the claims of pro-fossil fuel proponents in many developing countries, including those in Southeast Asia, that has helped slow down just energy transition. 

The spread of disinformation is another key issue to monitor for at least the next four years. The recent announcement of Meta ending its fact-checking program in the USA, a decision clearly made to appease the incoming Presidency, may be the start of a trend that could spread globally, including in developing countries with large social media consumption.  

Addressing disinformation is necessary to further accelerate global climate action and enable more people to actively participate. This would involve changing perceptions and narratives, including the notion that fact-checking is politically-biased that has been promoted by purveyors of scientifically-inaccurate information.

Countering disinformation becomes a greater challenge with the ongoing shifts in online media and its consumption. Short video-based content and alternatives to traditional modes of news delivery are becoming more preferred, especially among younger audiences. The increasing accessibility of artificial intelligence could also propel more disinformation, worsened by the difficulty of many users to distinguish trustworthy content from what is not.  

It would take coordinated actions between governments, the academe, civil society groups, and other stakeholders to counter false information and ensure that the climate agenda becomes more relevant to billions of people instead of only caring about it when disasters happen.   

From the lens of climate action, the one bright side to Trump’s return to power is that this has happened before. The rest of the world should have a better idea how to handle the implications of this development. The reality of the climate crisis is also more undeniable than it was eight years ago. Genuine solutions like RE are also growing in popularity and reliability, although at a slower pace than what is needed.

Nonetheless, responding to this would be nowhere near easy for the developing world. As we enter a critical time for climate action, the truth must trump false agendas, hidden or in plain sight.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.