What a second Trump presidency means for climate action

(To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter Here.)

This week, in a blistering record-hot on election day, americans went to the polls and voted to reinstate former president donald trump.

If a second Trump term is a watershed event for American democracy, so is it for global efforts to address climate change. Trump has a long history of denying climate science and will likely reverse, once again, US climate efforts at home and abroad. It’s safe to say that the possibility of any kind of ambitious plot to double down and keep the world on the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C is firmly in the rear-view mirror. But as dire as the climate consequences of a second Trump presidency, he is not a voice for the decarbonization agenda. Both economic factors and global political realities mean that climate efforts will continue.

The question now is what we make of this new reality. Companies and investors will need to look beyond the day-to-day moves of the incoming Trump Administration to understand long-term trends—and plan with both in mind. It is difficult to track the long-term trajectory, but it will pay dividends, not only for the climate, but also in terms of financial results. Political leaders will need to stay aligned with state and local governments to advance climate change efforts. And climate change activists will need to find new ways to reach a wide range of audiences.

The first climate test of the second Trump presidency it will probably come right at the gate. Many of the tax cuts he passed in 2017 are set to expire next year, and the debt limit will return in January. All of this means that fiscal policy will take center stage in Washington and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Joe Biden’s flagship climate law, will play a key role in the discussions.

Some Republicans will try to eliminate it and use the money to finance tax cuts. Others are likely to take a more piecemeal approach, trying to get the incentives they don’t like while keeping the ones they do. Many Republican areas benefited from the law’s manufacturing incentives, and conventional wisdom across the aisle in Washington is that a total repeal would be hard to imagine. In any case, we can expect the Trump administration to change how the law is implemented, making it more favorable to its favored companies and industries.

An easier task for Trump will be to target the rules and regulations passed under Biden. Separate from the IRA, the Environmental Protection Agencyfor example, it has issued rules for everything from power plants to passenger vehicles designed to accelerate the energy transition. Reversing these decisions takes time, but there is no doubt that we can expect a deregulatory agenda. It’s worth noting that Elon Musk’s role remains an open question. Tesla founder benefits from many IRA incentives. Time will tell what he wants and what role he will play.

On the global stage, it is wise to expect a US retreat as well. Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, the 2015 accord designed to structure international efforts to combat climate change, and he can easily do so again. A analysis from Carbon Brief argues that, taken together, Trump’s rollbacks would add 4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, compared to a continuation of Biden’s policies. It is equivalent to the annual emissions of Japan and the European Union combined.

Reading all of this, it would be easy to conclude that the US climate movement is about to grind to a halt. But the truth is that while Trump might slow decarbonization efforts, he won’t be able to stop them entirely. data from the Rhodium Group and MIT track $493 billion in cleantech investment in the two years since IRA adoption, a 71% increase over the past two years. Companies may scale back some of these investments in response to the new political climate, but many clean manufacturing investments already have steel in the ground. And in many cases, production on solar panels, electric vehicles and other technologies has already begun.

The climate regulatory regime has become an important factor for global companies – not just in the US, but across the US european union and in many Asian markets. And California, which would be the world’s fifth largest economy if it were a country, also has its own climate rules. Regardless of where they are based, large companies will have to comply with these standards. Eventually, smaller businesses in their supply chains will too.

Companies and investors will have to decide how to thread that needle – and there are no easy answers. It might be tempting for some to take a Trump-friendly approach and abandon decarbonisation priorities. But this approach carries major risks to global operations and long-term growth prospects.

At a recent climate-focused private dinner, the host asked attendees if the audience had simply reached “peak climate concern.” The question stayed with me. It’s hard to deny that, in the short term, the issue fell to the sidelines of the mainstream conversation. But to think that the public will remain unconcerned about climate change for years to come would be extremely myopic, perhaps even negligent. Insurance marketsfor example, they began to crack under the pressure of repeated natural disasters. It’s only a matter of time before voters – and customers – feel these costs in their pocketbooks, and politicians feel them in the voting booth.

So where does that leave us? The last time the US elected Trump as president, many of the largest companies were vocal that they would not withdraw their climate commitments. Indeed, many companies have doubled down despite Trump’s presidency. But the zeitgeist has changed since then. Emphasis on ESG concerns – short for environmental, social and governance –it became toxic. And companies are wary of angering pro-Trump consumers — not to mention Trump himself, who is known for blasting companies on social media.

Like me wrote last weekcompanies need to spend less time talking about the moral imperative of climate change and more time talking about the financial imperative for their own firms. Decarbonisation efforts often reduce costs. Sustainable products resonate with a significant share of consumers. And adaptation efforts help companies prepare for extreme weather events. To maintain climate momentum, it is useful to remind corporate stakeholders that climate action is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

For climate advocates, this moment presents a challenge and an opportunity. While some voters remain turned on by the messages climate advocates have been pushing in recent years, others remain clearly unconvinced. Understanding how to reach a wider range of the population will contribute to the sustainable development of climate policy.

Write to Justin Worland at [email protected].