Donald Trump is now formally anointed as the Republican nominee for the 2024 Presidential elections, with JD Vance, the junior senator from Ohio, as his running mate. Some commentators worry about climate backsliding during the second Trump administration. After all, during Trump 1.0, the US exited the Paris Climate Agreement and rolled back more than 100 domestic climate and health regulations.
In particular, these commentors are concerned that Project 2025, a policy document from the conservative Heritage Foundation, will guide Trump’s regulatory and administrative efforts. This document calls for eliminating restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands, scaling back federal subsidies for renewable energy technologies, scrapping energy efficiency standards for appliances, and easing environmental permitting restrictions.
While Trump 2.0 will certainly seek to roll back progress in some climate areas, the concerns about large-scale retreat are probably overblown. First, because climate policy is already facing local resistance, the additional impact of Trump 2.0 on climate backsliding is uncertain. Second, Trump might face a pushback from his own party should he seek to roll back legislations that distribute monies. Finally, the US is no longer a leader in international climate policy. China dominates decarbonization technologies and their supply chains. Thus, it is not clear how Trump 2.0’s disengagement with global climate policy might affect climate policy trajectory worldwide.
Ongoing Backlash to Climate Policy
Climate policy has hit speed bumps even during Biden 1.0. While individuals are often wary to pay for projects with global benefits, with inflation and economic insecurity, individuals are more sensitive to climate policies that impose personal costs. This is why New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul canceled congestion pricing. Energy cost issues might motivate Washington’s voters to repeal the Cap and Invest policy in November. The auto industry has scaled back its plans to switch over to electric vehicles (EVs) because consumers do not like their higher sticker price (even with generous federal subsidies).
Some pushbacks are due to equity reasons. California has scaled back incentives for rooftop solar because existing policies subsidized the affluent who own houses and have opportunity to install solar panels. Rural communities are protesting against utility-scale wind and solar because they view these facilities as destroying the rural character of their landscapes. Our recent research with Inhwan Ko shows that every fourth US county has enacted local ordinances restricting renewable facilities; liberal counties are more likely to enact such ordinances than conservative ones.
Some Native American Tribes have opposed renewable facilities on their land. The National Congress of American Indians has called for a moratorium on offshore wind energy permitting until comprehensive and transparent analyses of its impact on Tribal interests are completed.
Trump 2.0 will not be a friend of climate progress. Yet, the cause of climate change is better served if climate advocates invest their political capital in removing existing obstacles to climate progress. Many issues are at the county and state levels, requiring tedious grassroots work. But the payoff is potentially huge and local progress could insulates climate issues from policy backsliding at the federal level.
Legislative and Administrative Rollbacks
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is Biden’s landmark climate achievement. It provides $400 billion for climate projects, the largest ever federal spending on this issue. Importantly, most of the IRA monies have gone to Red (50% to 60%) and Purple states (30%). As the unsuccessful Republican efforts to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) show, federal spending creates its support constituencies who oppose its repeal. Conservatives are already making a case for continuing the IRA: “For the most part, the IRA adopted a market approach, relying on a series of tax credits along with easing access to capital. These incentives are something that Republicans have often supported in the past. Many tax credits — such as for carbon capture, hydrogen and nuclear power — had been introduced by Republicans, enacted in previous bills and enjoyed significant bipartisan support.”
What if Trump 2.0 rolls back climate regulations via executive action? After all, with the 6-3 conservative majority in the US Supreme Court, executive action will face fewer legal challenges. However, federal district courts (where such executive action would likely be challenged first) and the Courts of Appeal still lean liberal: across the ninety four federal districts, 459 judges were appointed by Democratic Presidents and 365 by Republican Presidents.
US and Global Climate Policy
Trump 2.0 will have a marginal impact on global climate policy. The key reason is that China, not the US, is leading the renewable energy revolution. The numbers are staggering. As per International Energy Agency, “China’s share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels (such as polysilicon, ingots, wafers, cells and modules) exceeds 80%.” In addition to dominating global renewable markets, it is making rapid energy transition at the domestic level. For example, in 2023, it accounted for 57% of new global solar photovoltaic capacity (that is more than rest of the world combined!). China dominates wind energy and energy storage as well. In EVs, China accounted for 58% of the global sales in 2023: five times the US market and seven times the German market. BYD, not Tesla, is now the largest EV company in the world.
In sum, over-attributing climate problems to Trump is not productive because it allows climate advocates to ignore the inconvenient truths about the ongoing climate backlash. However, it is critical that federal climate spending is protected. This is why mobilizing Red and Purple state beneficiaries could provide political insurance for the IRA. This would involve constructing a bipartisan coalition (The Great American Outdoors Act could provide ideas in this regard). In terms of political framing, climate groups might have to drop the climate label and protect the IRA investments under the banner of economic development and national security. The question is: are climate groups willing to reframe their advocacy strategies?
