Will Donald Trump Destroy the Planet?

By Luisa Peyrusaubes. In collaboration with Sciences Po Environnement.

Standing in front of the world’s wealthiest during his Inaugural Address on Monday, January 20, Donald Trump pledged to declare a state of “energy emergency” and called to “Drill, baby, drill!”. Throughout his electoral campaign Trump voiced his denialist views on climate change and his will to boost the American fossil fuel industry, and has already signed a decree to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile, the World Meteorological Organization has confirmed that 2024 was the hottest year on record, exceeding 1850-1900 average temperature levels by over 1.5 degrees Celsius. Thus, there is a scientifically undeniable need to take action for our future, and fast. Yet, as the world’s leading economic power, the level of commitment to tackling the climate crisis the US chooses to demonstrate will inevitably have considerable ripple effects throughout the world. What can we expect the new American President to do, or to not do, for the climate ? Who will pay the consequences of his actions first ? Is society doomed ?  

America’s endless game of see-sawing

Progress regarding climate policy in the US has been an endless game of see-sawing for the last ten years. 

In March 2017, Trump signed a long-promised executive order to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Issued as part of the Clean Air Act in 2015, this law compelled fossil-fueled power plants across the US to undergo significant changes in order to reduce their carbon emissions, and distributed financial incentives for them to adopt renewable energy alternatives. By shutting down mines and “boosting the clean energy economy”, the policy aimed at improving health conditions thanks to better air quality, reducing households’ energy bills, and creating “tens of thousands of new jobs” by 2030. 

That same year, the Republican President opened Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, after a forty year ban. Biden canceled many of the oil drilling projects and extended protected areas, but now Trump is planning to open them up again. He argues that the US needs to increase its energy supply by extracting resources in order to reduce energy-related inflation, and promote economic growth. These plans, however, are in dangerous contradiction with the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)’s 2022 warning that developing any new gas and oil fields would be “incompatible” with the 1.5C target. 

Moreover, Trump has already signed a decree to end federal support for electric vehicles which included a $7,500 tax credit for EV buyers, a law that was adopted by Congress in 2022. In addition, he has revoked Biden’s 2021 executive order that set a (non legally binding) 50% electric vehicle target for 2030, arguing that, “The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity”. Yet, Elon Musk need not worry: his current nearly 50% share in national EV sales will undoubtedly grow in the coming years thanks to the ever-stricter protectionist measures the President plans to implement during his term. Finally, Trump also promised during his campaign to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Withdrawing from the COP21 Agreement

Most emblematic of climate backtracking during Trump’s first term was America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017. At the time, the President had justified his decision by claiming that the pact put the US at a competitive disadvantage to China. This agreement had been ratified by Barack Obama and 194 other world leaders in 2015 in Paris at COP21 and aimed to reduce carbon emissions to ensure that global average temperatures remained well under 2 degrees Celsius. Under Biden’s mandate, the US joined the pact again, somewhat restoring hope in international coordinated climate action. 

Still, global carbon emissions have continued to reach new record highs each year, while world-wide investments in the fossil fuel industry increased by 7% in 2024. In this context,  America’s renewed withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will likely further stall international efforts to cut carbon emissions. Leaders of other developed countries that signed the agreement and that have traditionally looked up to the US for guidance may feel inspired to back out too. 

In addition, as the world’s largest economy and biggest contributor to global flows of climate financial aid towards developing countries, America’s departure from the pact will possibly weaken these nations’ ability to manage the environmental transition and cope with the impact of climate change. Indeed, since 2021, the US has leveled up its International Public Climate Finance from $1.5 billion to $9.5 billion in 2023, a more than six-fold increase, contributing to about one tenth of developed countries’ collective goal of mobilizing $100 billion per year in this regard (an agreement signed between forty-three developed countries at COP15 in 2009). But chances are that Trump will curtail these funds, if not end them entirely. Similarly, the US will presumably not be contributing to the Loss and Damage Fund, created at COP27 to provide assistance to nations most vulnerable to extreme climatic events and operationalized last November at COP29.

If America is no longer in the game, then we will have to count on China and Europe, the other two highest and powerful emitting blocks, to keep their promises. On Tuesday, January 21, in response to Donald Trump’s announcements, Chinese officials vowed to remain committed to COP21 goals, saying “Climate change is a common challenge faced by all of humanity”. 

Arguably, though, the absence of a dangerously climate denialist state at future Conferences of the Parties (COPs) may actually be for the best. If one of the world’s most influential nations were to hail fossil fuels at the most important global meeting on climate change each year, convincing world leaders to convert their economies to renewable energies would no doubt become an even more arduous task than it already is. 

The probable immediate consequence of Trump’s behavior will be the loss of support for vulnerable and working-class families, whose voices hold the least amount of power to call on authorities for change. On January 20, Trump signed the “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” order to cut federal funds to sanctuary cities (cities that offer protection to irregular immigrants) such as LA, where billionaires’ golden mansions going up in flames seems to be the President’s primary concern, as expressed in his inaugural speech; he deplored the fact that the fires were “even affecting some of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in our country, some of whom are sitting here right now. They don’t have a home any longer”.

Goodbye IRA ?  

But despite his raging climate change denialism, Trump will likely not ignore his electors’ demands for the sake of dismantling his predecessor’s work. Ironically, Republicans themselves may be the ones to plead with their party leader to maintain aspects of President Biden’s ambitious Inflation Reduction Act. Indeed, this environmental policy, enacted on August 16, 2022, has created thousands of jobs in Republican-held states by promoting clean energy technology, manufacturing and innovation there. It is predicted to support US climate goals by achieving 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035, a 50% economy-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction from 2005 levels in 2030, and net-zero emissions by 2050. The IRA plans to invest $392 billion dollars (2022-2031) of incentives for private actors to invest in clean energy, supply chains, job creation, and energy costs reduction between 2022 and 2031, among which $271 billion are tax credits and $121 billion are direct spending. 

These high federal expenditures (although it should be noted that damages linked to LA wildfires are predicted to cost over $200 billion alone) are what have fueled Republican resistance against the IRA. Based on previous attempts to rollback the policy, Republican Congressmen in the House of Representatives will undoubtedly try to prevent funding for Executive Order 14082 (which helps implement the IRA), revoke certain sections of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the Methane Emissions Reduction Program. However, it is unlikely that they will manage to gather a large enough coalition to fully repeal the IRA as major Republican states have actually benefited from the policy since its enactment. Indeed, more than half of clean energy and vehicle projects are located in Republican-held states. Along with California, Texas received the largest amount of federal investment, while the states of Wyoming and Nevada (both Republican-held) received the most federal investments per capita. 268,035 clean energy jobs are estimated to have been created in the state of Texas alone. As a result, in August 2024, 18 Republican House Representatives signed a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson that asked for the IRA’s energy tax credits to be “spared” from attempts to repeal the IRA.

Renewable energies

In 2023, fossil fuel energies accounted for a staggering 84% of America’s primary energy production and 82% of its energy consumption. While Donald Trump has regularly called to extract every last drop of oil available in America’s underground—even wanting to conquer Greenland for that purpose—it might not be in the US’ best interest to turn its back on solar panel and wind turbine production at the moment. According to the International Energy Agency, demand for renewable energies in the power, heat and transport sectors is bound to increase by 60% world-wide by 2030. In addition, Chinese firms are predicted to build enough solar manufacturing infrastructure on US soil this year to provide nearly half of the domestic market with renewable energy. If not for the planet, will Trump boost the American solar industry for the sake of defying his commercial nemesis and displaying sparkly GDP figures ?

Overall, if some uncertainties about the new President’s climate policy remain, it appears reasonable to fear that America will, in the coming years, stray far away from the path to sustainability and resilience that the climate crisis requires. It is also reasonable to question the impact this will have on other world leaders’ behavior, and perhaps even, the way Trump’s second term will shape humanity’s future as a whole.

Other posts that may interest you: