11/13/2024 | News release | Distributed by Public on 11/13/2024 13:10
With President Trump's recent election victory, the United States faces a shifting policy landscape. The potential negative repercussions for climate and environmental action are gargantuan.
We've seen this show before: In his first term, Trump gutted federal climate initiatives while attempting to roll back 125 environmental protections critical to safeguarding people and the planet. While many of these attempts were overturned or halted in the courts, a second Trump presidency will likely be more successful in undermining laws and regulations designed to protect the climate, air, water and vulnerable communities.
Some of the major setbacks we can expect include massive cuts to climate-focused agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Interior, with climate-hostile directors at the helm; expanding oil and gas production and limiting clean energy development; rescinding billions in unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and reallocating them toward high-carbon activities; and dismantling environmental justice initiatives. Federal climate policies will be put on ice, making it unlikely that the U.S. will meet its emissions-reduction targets. Internationally, the U.S. is expected to pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change and reduce climate finance assistance to vulnerable nations. And these are just a handful of numerous potential setbacks - explore more in the carousel below.
One of the most significant challenges under Trump's second term will be the lack of new federal climate legislation. With the president focused on deregulation and supporting fossil fuels, federal initiatives to reduce emissions or invest in clean energy will likely stall. While policies like the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provide a foundation for progress, the absence of new federal policies will widen the gap between U.S. climate goals and its actual emissions trajectory.
The Project 2025 roadmap, drafted by Trump allies, encourages significant budget cuts to agencies leading on climate action, most notably the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Interior (DOI). With fewer resources, their ability to manage existing programs - such as emissions-reductions projects, clean energy incentives and environmental protections - will be hampered. Project 2025 also proposes overhauling federal science agencies like the U.S. Global Change Research Program and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
In addition, Trump has vowed to appoint agency heads dedicated to dismantling as much climate policy as possible while striving to increase U.S. oil and gas output.
In addition to cuts in agency budgets, Trump has promised to "rescind all unspent funds" under the Inflation Reduction Act. While nearly 90% of such funds have been spent, this still leaves billions on the table. Such reallocation would undermine clean energy investments and delay emissions reductions in key sectors like electricity generation and transportation.
Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement during his first term weakened U.S. influence on international climate policy, and he has explicitly said he will pull the U.S. out of the accord again. Trump allies have also suggested exiting from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), further isolating the country from multilateral efforts and international economic opportunities to address climate change. Trump may also end U.S. collaboration on key international initiatives, such as those addressing deforestation.
While no other country followed the U.S. in leaving the Paris Agreement in 2017 and likely will not this time, an exit could leave the U.S. with less leverage to influence other major emitters to be ambitious in their climate policies.
Trump will undoubtedly attempt to cut international climate finance, weakening U.S. support for global climate mitigation and adaptation. As climate disasters intensify and disproportionately impact impoverished communities, major emitters like the U.S. must expand support to the nations that are hardest hit and least able to invest in the clean energy transition. Unfortunately, reduced U.S. funding and any unwillingness to boost Multilateral Development Bank capital could potentially dampen ambition among other donor countries.
Trump has pledged to abolish 10 regulations for each new regulation implemented - a sharp escalation from the previous "two-for-one" rule during his first administration. The eliminated regulations will likely target most - if not all - of President Biden's energy and environment agenda. This includes greenhouse gas emissions rules for power plants and cars, as well as a fee on methane emissions.
In addition to freezing or rolling back the Biden administration's environmental regulations, President Trump is certain to dismantle Biden's Justice40 initiative, which establishes a government-wide goal to ensure that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved and overburdened by pollution. While such efforts may continue through various state and local initiatives, the lack of federal dollars and a whole-of-government approach will slow the pace of environmental justice work.
A second Trump presidency combined with a solid majority in the Senate provides the opportunity to place hundreds more conservative judicial appointees on federal courts. Additional conservative appointments will almost certainly stall or reverse climate progress by having more judges who rule in favor of polluters in lawsuits that dismantle regulations and legislation that limit emissions. Whether through executive actions or judicial rulings, the impending environmental assaults will disproportionately impact environmental justice communities, which are unduly burdened by polluted air and water.
The Farm Bill will be reauthorized under the Trump administration. If he has majorities in both the Senate and the House, we can be close to certain that lawmakers will rescind climate-smart requirements for using the Inflation Reduction Act's $13 billion of conservation funding.
We can also expect weakened protections for forests and expanded logging. For example, if passed, the Fix Our Forests Act (H.R.8790) would limit public input into forest management planning and judicial review.
Perhaps one of the most pernicious and dangerous aspects of the Trump administration is his history of weaponizing disaster aid based on which states and governors he views as enemies or allies. With ever-increasing fires, floods and other natural disasters greatly exacerbated by climate change, exercising such personal grievances could cause even more harm. For example, Trump recently threatened to force Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) to weaken endangered species protections to increase agricultural water supply, saying, "We'll force it down his throat, and we'll say, 'Gavin, if you don't do it, we're not giving you any of that fire money that we send you all the time for all the forest fires that you have.'"
During the first Trump administration, the Department of Labor passed a rule making ESG investments more difficult. The Biden administration walked back the Trump rule and issued a new one permitting retirement plans to consider ESG issues. A new Trump administration and Republican Congress will likely revisit this. A proposed SEC rule requiring disclosure of climate risks will likely be shelved. If precedents from Republican states are followed, financial firms perceived as friendly to ESG could be blocked.
Indeed, a federal assault on climate would be both severe and devastating. Climate progress will slow at a time when the country needs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions more rapidly and better protect its citizens from escalating floods, droughts, fires and other threats.
But all hope is not lost.
Even with new and strong headwinds, several pathways remain to keep momentum for climate action alive.
For one, there are bipartisan climate-friendly opportunities to seize, such as continued clean energy development, which has already delivered tremendous economic benefits in both red and blue states. There is also support from both sides of the aisle for next-generation geothermal energy and from the business community for decarbonizing heavy industries and strengthening international supply chains to ensure U.S. competitiveness and security. These initiatives would bolster U.S. manufacturing and national security, while also benefitting the climate.
In addition, subnational actors like states, cities, businesses and tribal nations boldly stepped up during Trump's first term in office. They can - and early signs show they will - take up the mantle of leadership again in the climate fight.
Some of the major opportunities include:
Cyclists make use of New York City's bike lanes. Even without federal leadership on climate action, many cities will still pursue public transit, green infrastructure and other emissions-reducing initiatives. Photo by Adonis Page/ShutterstockWhen President Trump announced in 2017 that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, American communities, states, tribal nations and business leaders quickly coalesced to form America Is All In. More than 4,000 mayors, governors, university presidents and business leaders signed the We Are Still In declaration, committing to meet the emissions-reduction targets set in the Paris Agreement and continue engaging with the international community. The 2019 Accelerating America's Pledge report found that bottom-up leadership from states, cities, businesses and other subnational actors would reduce U.S. emissions by up to 37% by 2030, even without federal intervention.
And since the first Trump administration, subnational climate action initiatives have only grown in strength and commitment. Managing Co-Chair of America Is All In and former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said recently, "No matter what Trump may say, the shift to clean energy is unstoppable, and our country is not turning back."
Many states have enacted ambitious climate policies. For example, the 24 states and territories that comprise the bipartisan U.S. Climate Alliance, representing 54% of the U.S. population and 57% of the U.S. economy, have committed to achieving net-zero emissions no later than 2050.
Some states are poised for even greater action before Trump takes office. In California, voters overwhelming approved Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond measure that will help the state prepare for the impacts of climate change. Just after the election, California's Governor Newsom announced a special session of the state legislature to take steps "to safeguard California values"- including the fight against climate change - ahead Trump's second term. A day later, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved updates to the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), designed to accelerate the development of cleaner fuels and zero-emission infrastructure to help the state meet legislatively mandated air quality and climate targets.
At the same time, voters in Washington state upheld a new law that forces companies to cut carbon emissions while raising billions to support programs such as habitat restoration and climate preparation. Maryland's Governor Moore issued a wide-ranging executive order earlier this year directing state agencies to develop climate implementation plans to ensure the state could continue working towards its ambitious climate change targets, which aim for net-zero carbon by 2045.
In parallel, cities have long played a crucial role in advancing climate policies and will continue to do so. Climate Mayors, which started as a network of 30 mayors in 2017, is now a bipartisan network of nearly 350 U.S. mayors driving climate action in their communities. These cities continue investing in public transportation, green infrastructure and local emissions-reduction initiatives - all of which will continue to mitigate the impacts of climate change and build more sustainable urban environments with or without federal action on climate.
The Inflation Reduction Act's tax incentives, key to reducing emissions and building a low carbon economy, are popular across red and blue states, and are thus expected to endure.
In August 2024, eighteen House Republicans publicly urged House Speaker Mike Johnson not to repeal the clean energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, citing the need for business certainty and job creation in their districts. Acknowledging that some provisions have been helpful to the economy, Speaker Johnson said in September that he would use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer in amending the legislation should Republicans gain control of both chambers of Congress.
The data confirm that clean energy investments and job creation are occurring across the country and disproportionately in Republican-represented districts and states. The Inflation Reduction Act has already created more than 330,000 jobs. An August 2024 report from business group E2 revealed that in the two years since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, 215 clean energy projects landed in Republican districts, compared to 119 in Democratic ones. Seven states - Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - are on track to host 44% of the clean energy manufacturing projects announced since the climate law was signed in 2022.
Georgia is the number one state for clean energy investments, according to multiple analyses. The state's Republican governor is actively courting investments, recognizing the economic boom that clean energy initiatives bring.
With at least 354 clean energy projects announced across 40 states and investments surpassing $265 billion, the likelihood of Congress outright repealing these tax credits seems low. Even oil companies have urged Trump to maintain certain Inflation Reduction Act provisions for renewable fuels, carbon capture and hydrogen.
Electric vehicle charging stations at a parking lot in Bellingham, WA. Both red and blue states have benefitted from clean energy tax incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act. Photo by David Buzzard/ShutterstockAs we publish this piece, it looks certain that Republicans will hold the majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, most policies will still require 60 votes in the Senate to become law, presenting opportunities to advance climate policies that have bipartisan support. Recent policy proposals focusing on carbon dioxide removal, industrial decarbonization, geothermal energy, critical minerals, nuclear energy, permitting reform and trade policy reflect bipartisan support for these issues, signaling potential areas for consensus.
The bipartisan Carbon Removal, Efficient Agencies, Technology Expertise (CREATE) Act (S.2002) would boost research and development of carbon removal technologies through investments and job creation. Sponsored by Senators Sinema (I-AZ), Murkowski (R-AK), Whitehouse (D-RI) and Capito (R-WV), this is the type of legislation that could move forward, as it has bipartisan support as well as the backing of both industry and climate advocates. Collaborative efforts to advance carbon management technologies will allow the U.S. to better pursue a wide range of innovative technologies that simultaneously benefit the economy, manufacturing, American workers and the environment.
Industrial emissions are the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions globally, and the sector is set to become the highest emitter in the U.S. by 2030. The bipartisan Concrete Asphalt Innovation Act (S.3439), sponsored by Senators Coons (D-DE) and Tillis (R-NC), and the bipartisan companion bills IMPACT ACT (H.R. 7685) and IMPACT 2.0 (H.R. 9136), sponsored by Reps. Miller (R-OH) and Foushee (D-NC), would establish a promising U.S. effort to innovate and decarbonize America's concrete and asphalt sectors, boost American competitiveness, bolster supply chains, reduce pollutants and create jobs. Another proposal, the bipartisan and bicameral PROVE IT Act, would direct the Department of Energy to study the carbon intensity of certain industrial goods produced or imported into the U.S.
These bills are important for competitiveness in a global marketplace that increasingly favors lower-carbon products. For example, as the E.U. begins implementing its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), one of the most extensive environmental trade policies to date, continued U.S. leadership as a global producer of goods like steel and aluminum requires American goods to be both high-quality and low carbon.
Next-generation geothermal energy provides clean, firm power by harnessing Earth's heat using advanced drilling technologies first developed in the oil and gas sector.
Geothermal energy is key to an "all-of-the above" energy approach and is concentrated in western states with supportive Republican members of Congress. Given the newness of these next-generation geothermal technologies, they received limited policy incentives in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act compared to other technologies, so there may be appetite to stimulate the industry through tax incentives, drilling support, greater energy development on public lands and permitting reform. Despite tight fiscal budgets, geothermal funding has remained constant given bipartisan support and funding from both the House and Senate appropriations bills for geothermal resource assessment.
Moving forward, Republicans are focused on geothermal permitting reform proposed in the HEATS Act (H.R.7409), which will be considered by the full House of Representatives soon. In addition, The Geothermal Optimization Act has bipartisan support, with lead sponsors including Senators Heinrich (D-NM), an avid climate hawk, Cortez-Masto (D-NV), and conservatives Risch (R-ID) and Lee (R-UT). This bill would expedite the process for geothermal observation well permits on public lands.
Nuclear power has broad bipartisan support, with significant potential to grow this source of low carbon energy. Earlier this year, Congress passed and the president signed bipartisan legislation that included the ADVANCE Act, which has the potential to triple the U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050, according to Ali Zaidi, climate advisor to President Biden. As U.S. energy demand continues to grow to power data centers and electrify transportation and manufacturing processes, bipartisan support will be needed to accelerate the deployment of new reactor technologies and modernize the licensing process.
Critical minerals are essential components in wind turbines, solar panels, EV batteries, motors and more. National security concerns over critical minerals have increased interest in new federal policies. Several critical mineral bills have bipartisan support, demonstrating a collective commitment likely to persist under a Trump presidency. For example:
Permitting reform is essential to achieving U.S. climate goals. While both parties support it, priorities differ: Democrats focus on transmission permitting reform, which is crucial for bringing more clean energy projects online, while Republicans seek fewer permitting restrictions for fossil fuel projects.
Despite these differences, the Senate has shown broad bipartisan support for the Energy Permitting Reform Act (S.4753), which passed out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with a 15-4 vote on July 31, 2024. Bill sponsors hope to pass the bill in the full Senate during the lame duck. While climate champs in Congress have heralded the bill as saving between 0.4 and 15.7 gigatons of CO2 emissions, many environmental groups oppose it. If there is a Republican trifecta with House, Senate and presidential control - which seems likely as of today - bipartisan progress on transmission reform may be less likely, hindering the potential to bring new clean energy projects online.
New trade policies could help or harm the climate, depending on the details.
Imposing tariffs on imports with high industrial emissions, such as cement and steel, could reduce what is known as "emissions leakage," moving pollution out of the country by importing energy-intensive goods rather than producing them domestically. However, many details would need to line up, including how these policies would achieve the intended effects with other countries. Because there is some bipartisan support for U.S. legislation to respond to the E.U.'s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and incentivize low-carbon industrial products, something positive for the climate might emerge in this space.
Some tariffs on clean energy goods could bolster U.S. manufacturing and ease reliance on lower-cost Chinese products. However, Trump's touted tariffs on Chinese imports could also cause severe supply-chain upsets, raising the costs of U.S. energy investments, specifically for wind turbines, solar cells and battery materials.
Corporate sustainability has come a long way in the U.S. in recent years, and progress is likely to continue even under a Trump presidency.
For example, nearly half of the country's leading companies have a net-zero emissions target. Thousands of businesses have joined initiatives like the We Mean Business coalition and America Is All In initiative. And in response to the U.S. election results, Ceres, a network of investors and companies, said, "There is no doubt that the largest U.S. investors and companies will continue embracing the opportunities of the current clean energy boom, setting net-zero emissions goals, and adopting transition action plans." Ceres' CEO and President Mindy Lubber went on to say that "businesses have been some of the strongest advocates for urgently needed government action -and they will continue to meet with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to voice their support for it. Investors and companies also stand ready to continue fighting for the rights of investors and financial institutions to assess all material financial risks in decision-making and to defend their freedom to invest and operate responsibly."
Trump's second term will inevitably slow the pace of U.S. climate action. But what it cannot do is stop the underlying momentum.
The progress made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will continue to propel clean energy forward while local, state and private sector leaders carry the torch even further. Much of America is still committed to creating a safe and prosperous future - even if its leadership isn't.