���񱦵�

As this year’s United Nations climate summit, COP 29, comes to an end, world leaders are uncertain about the future of climate change progress given the result of the latest U.S. presidential election.

Many expect the president-elect, Donald Trump, to again withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, a pact that governments agreed to during COP 21. The 2015 agreement aimed to reduce emissions and prevent the Earth’s temperature from rising more than 2°C, or 3.6°F, and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C (2.7°F) above pre-industrial levels. Trump of the agreement in 2017 during his first term as president.

Max Boykoff

Walking away from the agreement again would mean that the U.S., the of carbon dioxide, could further stall international efforts to slash emissions at a time when the world is already falling far short of the 2°C goal.

“This is a time when we need to be leaning into climate policy action, but the Trump administration's withdrawal would lose some of that momentum,” said Max Boykoff, professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and a fellow in the Cooperative Institute for Research and Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at ���񱦵�.

It also means that the world’s largest economy might no longer to developing countries to help them transition to low-carbon economies and cope with the impact of climate change, a key topic in recent United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP) conferences.

���񱦵� Today sat down with Boykoff to discuss what a second Trump presidency could mean for U.S. and international climate policies.

If the Trump administration backs out of the Paris agreement again, do you expect a worse impact than the previous withdrawal?

The Trump Administration, if they were to withdraw, would join only a small handful of countries, including Libya, Iran and Yemen, as the only defectors from this international agreement. Currently contributing 13% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. would leave behind nearly 200 countries that are working together to significantly address climate change at a global level.

As the United States is potentially flip flopping in terms of its commitment on climate change in the international arena, there is a loss of trust and a loss of opportunity for the U.S. to be in a position of leadership in a clean energy economy, and more generally on other global issues as well.

The withdrawal may also cause other leaders, who have also to addressing climate policy as a priority in their own countries, to leave the agreement.

What impact could a Trump Administration have on renewable energy and electric vehicles that are already becoming more mainstream?  

The renewable energy sector has grown to a point where it actually makes great financial sense to continue to benefit from these market trends. With the way the economy has been moving, the Trump administration's withdrawal from supporting renewable energy projects may carry more symbolic significance than actual functional significance.

Even during Trump’s first term, there were still trends toward decarbonization. Despite Trump’s advocacy for fossil fuel use, emissions remained pretty steady before they dropped off precipitously during the pandemic. The amount of electricity generated from fossil fuels actually went down slightly. The amount of renewable energy that supplied industry and other aspects of society actually increased nearly 50% during the first Trump administration.

Do you think the US will stay on track to meet its own climate pledge of achieving a net-zero emissions economy by 2050?

With this incoming second Trump administration, it is likely that there will be a lack of leadership and commitment to address climate change through policy actions at the scale, level, and urgency required.

But some elements of the incoming Trump administration, including their stance on deregulation, can actually help with the ongoing decarbonization process. For example, many of the permitting requirements have been inhibiting the proliferation of new infrastructure like transmission lines that can carry electricity from renewables across the country. So some of the Trump administration promises, while symbolically aligning with a stance that isn't favorable for climate policy action, may inadvertently help.

Are you worried that the Trump administration will roll back federal investment in renewable projects around the country?

Yes, but much of the funding from many of the decarbonization policies put forward during the Biden administration, including the Inflation Reduction Act, has flowed to many Republican-led states. While there have been many early indications that the Trump Administration will curtail renewable energy investments, we may see enough resistance and pushback from members of his own party in these states. 

Project 2025, the conservative policy blueprint for the next Republican president, calls for withdrawing not only from the Paris agreement, but also its parent treaty, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). How concerning would it be if the U.S. withdraws from UNFCCC?

The 900+ page report devotes about 40 pages to dismantling climate and environmental policies in the U.S. Withdrawing from the 1992 UNFCCC can have many consequences in terms of U.S. leadership and involvement in ongoing COP negotiations.

The UNFCCC will continue to go forward with or without the United States. So withdrawing is, frankly, unwise. When you're still in the treaty, you can influence the conversations and decision-making that take place, but withdrawing from it places the Trump administration and their emissaries on the outside of ongoing negotiations.

What are you most concerned about regarding how the second Trump administration will impact climate policies?

What worries me most is the loss of support for everyday working-class people here in the United States who are experiencing the impacts of climate change and other connected issues because of potential decisions that the Trump administration may make along with support—or lack of resistance—from Congress.

Those who are at the forefront of climate impacts, those who are vulnerable within this country are often those with the least influential voices, often those with the least amount of power to call for the kind of actions that are needed to improve their lives and livelihoods. It remains to be seen where the funding cuts will be proposed, but on climate terms—irrespective of left-right politics—the second Trump administration’s early signaling of their plans is worrisome.