Is this bad? Yes. According to the Guardian, "The impact of Donald Trump enacting the climate policies of the rightwing Project 2025 would result in billions of tonnes of extra carbon pollution, wrecking the US’s climate targets, as well as wiping out clean energy investments and more than a million jobs, a new analysis finds."
Read more: Berkeley Law have published A Guide to the Major Climate and Environmental Excerpts in the Project 2025 Report.
But the United States is also a Federation of States, and cities. Many of these administrations will continue to support climate action at their administrative level. Like in 2016 with the first Trump Administration the climate movement will need to work at state and city levels, and with changing individual and corporate sustainability behaviours.
In this election in Washington state, voters upheld an ambitious new law to force polluters to cap their fossil fuel emissions. In California, voters backed a ballot initiative to create a $10 billion “climate bond” for climate and environmental projects. At least five of six ballot measures related to climate change resulted in what most environmentalists consider wins according to Inside Climate News. The Nature Conservancy lists Twelve state and local ballot initiatives related to climate and conservation that were passed, totaling more than $18 billion.
Carbon Brief did analysis in March what a Trump win would mean for US emissions: an extra 4bn tonnes by 2030 (Carbon Brief) This win comes after the devastation of North Carolina by Hurricane Helene, and with Nearly all of US states in drought conditions after a summer of record heat.
It should be noted that roughly 80 percent of the Inflation Reduction Act money spent so far has flowed to Republican congressional districts, where lawmakers and business leaders want to protect that investment and the jobs they bring. Trump will find it difficult and unpopular to reverse that investment.
It will also be interesting watching how Elon Musk, as a major Trump backer and financial supporter, will carve out a space for Electric Vehicle production under a Trump administration. Heat Map report on Trump Won. Now the Fight Over the Clean Energy Economy Begins, provides insight into potential conflicts in the Tump Administration with Kennedy and Musk.
So here is some analysis from Dr. Ashfaq Khalfan, Director, Climate Justice, Oxfam America from X, that the fight for a safe climate will continue in the US:
The policies of a Trump administration will deeply harm US and global climate action. But predictions that this is ‘game over’ for climate are wrong. The fight for climate action in the US will continue at the Federal, state and local level, and the rest of the world must do its part. A few facts to keep in mind:
- There is a very strong US climate movement that has deep connections with a wide range of groups working on economic, racial and social justice. Even if it cannot change the mind of a Trump administration, there are many other places where it can and will affect climate policy.
- Massive levels of tax credits for green energy are baked into US law, in particular the Inflation Reduction Act. The new administration may not be able to secure a majority to undo it. There is already a political and economic constituency among Republicans that wants to keep them. For example, 18 Republican Congress members have already gone on the record to oppose cuts to clean energy tax credits.
- Around two-thirds of the US economy and population is in states and cities whose leaders are formally committed to the Paris Agreement – they can take significant action to lower carbon pollution quickly. requiring electricity is renewable. Half of US states, representing more than half the US population, have committed to 100% clean energy.
- A few states are considering bills to make oil companies pay for climate damages. Vermont has already passed such a law: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/vermont-law-fossil-fuel-companies-pay-climate-damages-rcna154964
- Research shows that if states and local government act ambitiously on climate, even if the Federal government does nothing to help, the US could reduce its emissions by 60% below 2005 levels by 2035. Not enough, but substantial. Even if there were maximum federal rollbacks, we modeled a scenario in which recent legislation and regulations from the federal government, including the IRA, BIL, and recently finalized EPA regulations, are removed. Under this scenario, continued non-federal action can achieve a 48% reduction by 2035. (See page 52 of this study).
- Significant pressure can be put on companies directly – via consumer pressure and boycotts - to shift to clean energy and to deliver on their existing pledges without greenwashing and while respecting human rights of workers and communities their operations affect.
- We will have to convince more of the US public that climate action is an existential threat that requires much more political attention and funding – and that rich polluters must be made to pay. The climate movement will have to be more inventive and ambitious than ever.
Expert reaction from Climate Scientists
The Science Media Centre provided several climate scientists to comment on what the US Election result will mean for climate action:
Dr Friederike Otto, Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, said:
“The world is in a very different place to what it was when Trump was last in power. The global move to renewable energy is now happening at an unprecedented pace. Nothing the US government can do will change the simple fact that renewable energy is cheaper and more reliable than oil, gas and coal. Fossil fuels are a thing of the past. The world is moving on.
“The US has never been a great team player at COPs, regardless of which party is in government. People don’t go to COPs expecting the US to push for more ambition. When Trump quit the Paris Agreement in 2016, many governments still stuck to their plans. As always, other countries need to step up at COP29.
“Trump can deny climate change all he wants, but the laws of physics don’t care about politics. As we speak, nearly every US state is experiencing drought and last month, back-to-back hurricanes wreaked havoc in the southeast. Extreme weather will keep getting worse in the US as long as the world burns fossil fuels.”
Prof Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at UCL, said:
“Donald Trump has won a historic second term as US President and this will have a profound impact on the domestic and international climate change agenda. Trump declared during his election campaign that he does not believe in climate change. During his first term in office, he withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement and many of us predict he will do this again. Pulling out one of the world superpowers from COP negotiations to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is a big deal – as it allows other countries to slow their own decarbonisation and blame the US instead of their own lack of ambition.
“Domestically Trump is a vocal supporter of coal, but coal use decline during his first Presidency due to the switch to gas and renewable energy. This has continued under President Biden and will continue into the future due to simple economics. This reflects global trends moving away from coal to natural gas and renewable energy. But the transition from fossil fuels is to slow and the UN have suggested that with current trends we are looking at 3.1˚C warming by the end of the century.
“The other major trend that Trump has little influence on is the growth in the global green economy which is worth over $10 trillion annually which is 10% of the world’s GDP. In the US there are at least 10 million jobs in the green economy compared with 300,000 in the fossil fuel industry. Hence, if you want to grow your economy and make jobs, then investment in the green economy will be essential.
“In summary Trump may slow down the transition away from fossil fuels and allow other countries to delay action – but the writing is on the wall both politically and economically for fossil fuels. It is when – not if – fossil fuels cease to be used as an energy source."
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said:
“Donald Trump said relatively little about climate change on the campaign trail, except occasional comments that showed he still does not understand the damage it is causing to lives and livelihoods in the United States. Based on his first term, we can expect him to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement and fail to honour commitments to provide financial support for poor countries to deal with climate change, which is the main issue due to be discussed at the United Nations climate change summit in Azerbaijan next week. He may not reverse the investments in clean energy technologies that have resulted from the Inflation Reduction Act because they have benefited many Republican states, but he had pledged to introduce heavy tariffs on imports of cheap Chinese electric vehicles, which will increase prices for American consumers. Mr Trump is also being advised by some Republican groups to abolish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including the National Hurricane Center, which would leave the United States much more vulnerable to extreme weather.”
Prof Simon Lewis, Chair of Global Change Science, University College London, said:
“We can say goodbye to the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Increasingly deadly climate impacts will escalate. It is as simple as that. The floods and the droughts and the heatwaves, the devastated lives and destroyed crops, these will not stop for a climate denier. But more positively, international cooperation will also not stop for a climate denier. The ongoing energy transition to renewables will not stop for a climate denier. The US has voted to continue its long-term loss of power internationally as it backs fossil dinosaur industries and not those of future growth and prosperity.”
Professor Chris Hilson, Director of the Reading Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading, said:
“Trump’s re-election may surprise on climate. Internationally, Trump may withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement for a second time, but that’s not likely to have the sort of impact it did before in terms of international diplomacy. It’s already more or less priced in. Other countries will carry on without the US.
“Of course, US climate emissions still count for a big slice of the global whole, so what he does domestically on climate also matters. The Biden administration was itself no angel on climate – US fracking continued apace, and exports of LNG reached record highs. Biden did act to reduce methane emissions though, which is critical for remaining below 2 degrees of warming because it’s a very powerful short term greenhouse gas. Trump could be tempted to cut back on those methane rules. But the EU’s new methane law will not allow imports from countries which have weak methane controls, and the UK should be looking at doing something similar with its proposed CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism). Trade is one of Trump’s favourite policy tools, but it can also be used against him if he tries to engage in a climate race to the bottom.
“As other have noted, US climate policy has also largely moved from stick to carrots in the shape of IRA subsidies for climate friendly industries. These will be harder to dismantle than rule-based sticks because industries like freebies and many of them go to Republican states.
“Likewise, politicians like Trump are elected for a relatively short term, but the markets invest for periods beyond this. So, US industry will be positioning itself for a decarbonised economy. It won’t be investing in coal. And demand for oil and gas will fall as electrification proceeds.
“The real question is whether that decarbonisation and electrification will take place despite Trump of because of him. With Elon Musk’s role in the election, we may see a push to position the US as a new energy powerhouse, with a great lithium industry, a resurgent nuclear industry, and an internationally competitive EV auto and battery industry. Trump is a businessman. And he likes to win. Sticking to a fossil fuel economy is not likely to position the US economy for the win. So that may yet be the surprise on climate in a Trump presidency. This is not climate, this is business.”
Carbon Brief has also published reactions by experts to Trump's election
So what will it do for climate policy in Australia
It will likely embolden the Opposition Parties in proposing nuclear, supporting coal and gas domestic use and expansion for export, and winding back renewables.
It will make the Labor Government more timid on climate policy.
The next Federal election, to be held in the next six months, will likely focus on cost of living.
Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong said in a doorstop interview that the US pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement would not affect Australia's climate policy position:
Journalist: Are you worried about sticking to the Paris Agreement when a country like America could pull out? What would be the point to you?
Foreign Minister: Well, two points I'd make. Firstly, this is a time when we will see change. President Trump has campaigned on change. We shouldn't be surprised if there's change. One of the areas we know from the previous Trump Administration, as they did withdraw from the Paris Agreement, Australia didn't, because we don't believe it's in our in our national interest. You said, what is the point? Apart from the imperative of climate change, there is the imperative of the economic transition. We are going to have to be able to prosper in a world where many and much of the global economy is moving to net zero. So we have to have an economic transition in Australia so that our children, our grandchildren, have the benefits of being able to prosper in such a world.
Former Australian diplomat Gregory Andrews has blogged: American Democratic Decay: Australia Must Find New Friends (Lyrebird Dreaming)
Australian Climate Scientist with Climate Analytics in an op-ed in the Guardian writes that Donald Trump can’t stop global climate action. If we stick together, it’s the US that will lose out, argues that climate damages in the US will continue to escalate, and if Trump does enact the changes he has campaigned on, will find itself falling behind on new technologies and markets.
The Australian government, especially given its intention to host COP31, must play a strong diplomatic role to help ensure the fallout from the second Trump presidency is limited, and that international domestic action everywhere else continues to move ahead.
This requires leadership. The government must step up and work with other like-minded countries to bring together a coalition prepared to move forward on climate. And it needs to move forward itself.
Christian Downie, Associate Professor at Australian National University, writes at The Conversation that A Donald Trump presidency is bad for climate action, but Australia should get on with the job by:
- doubling down on the Future Made in Australia agenda, such as extending production tax credits to additional clean energy industries,
- boosting public finance for new renewable projects
- Phasing out the billions of dollars per year to coal and gas
- strengthen relationships with US states working towards climate action such as California, but also with Republican states that benefit from clean energy investments.
- establish new alliances with governments in Europe and Asia and strengthen existing ones, especially with hosting COP31 in 2026 in mind.
Update:
12 November 2024 - David Spratt: America first, Earth last: Australia’s security now needs a climate focus (Pearls and Irritations)
Australia has arrived at a strategic crossroad that is not just a matter of environmental policy but a national, regional and global security issue of unprecedented scope. Australia must question how to manage its relationship with the US and not be dragged down by a Trump-led climate regression. At the same time, Australia must scale up major collaborations with Europe, China, and other proactive nations striving to curb emissions and avert disaster, even as the US continues to waiver....
It’s a moment for Australia to lead by choosing responsible, reality-based diplomacy that acknowledges the climate emergency, and positions the nation as part of the solution, not the problem.
References:
New York Times, 6 Nov 2024, U.S. Election Sends Alarming Message for Global Climate Efforts https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/climate/trump-climate-change-paris-cop29.html
New York Times, 6 Nov 2024, What Trump’s Victory Means for Climate Change https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/climate/trump-climate-change.html
Science Media Centre, 6 November 2024, expert reaction to Trump’s re-election and impact on climate issues https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-trumps-re-election-and-impact-on-climate-issues/
No comments:
Post a Comment