What would a Trump presidency mean for climate risk?

This is a free-to-view edition of Unpacking Climate Risk. Become a paying subscriber to get three new posts sent to your inbox each week 👇

Not quite ready to make the leap but liked the article? Show your support by buying us a coffee👇

I’m not much of a details guy.  If you’re looking for someone to go through a policy statement, line-by-line, and weigh up the various costs and benefits, you should call on someone else.  My impression is that Louie is very good at doing this (When I have the time, and who has that anymore? – Louie).  He’s better suited to looking through the Harris climate plan and making an assessment than I am.

But Trump, like on many issues, is very short on details.  In contrast, The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 represents a detailed blueprint for the next Republican administration – and would be horrendous for the environment.  Trump has repeatedly disavowed the plan, even though several of the authors are, or have been, members of his circle.  Still, if you take him at his word (never a good idea) you’re left with a small number of slogans and affiliations on which to base an assessment of his climate bonafides.

Trump’s primary energy pitch is “drill, baby, drill” which isn’t especially subtle.  He obviously despises wind farms – purportedly out of concern for the welfare of birds and whales, though I suspect it’s more a case of rampant NIMBYism. He has said that he wants to halve the cost of energy within a year for American consumers.  Then there’s his claim that the seas will rise by only one-eighth of an inch over the next 497 years, which places him squarely on the side of climate denialists.  Oh, and he has also tried to sell control of climate regulations to oil companies in exchange for billion dollar donations.  

Let’s face it, if you’re a committed environmentalist Trump is not the guy you want to be in charge of climate policy.  His platform would likely increase the US carbon footprint, thereby contributing to more frequent and extreme weather events and accelerating the pace of slow-onset events, like desertification, ocean acidification, and ecosystem collapse.  His agenda would also do nothing to harden the US against these threats, unlike the Biden administration which has pumped $50bn into climate resilience and adaptation over the last four years.

But assuming he is sworn in on January 20, there are a few things that give me the skimpiest scintilla of hope that a Trump presidency won’t be a complete trainwreck for our climate ambitions.

The first is Elon Musk’s entanglement with the Trump campaign.  Mr Musk has obviously made a big contribution to sustainable transportation by demonstrating that electric vehicles (EVs) can be practical and popular.  Trump now claims to support vehicle electrification – after previously calling it “lunacy” – and saying that its supporters should “rot in hell” (including, presumably, Musk himself).  Trump now says he has to be in favor of the technology because of Elon’s endorsement, though recent remarks suggest his support is extremely fickle.

The cravenness of Trump’s transactional approach to power cannot be questioned.  Musk is rich, and Trump wants his money.  Musk, though, has his X (formerly Twitter) platform that is already being leveraged to secure his own ends, besides many other avenues of influence.  You could imagine Musk, out of pure self-interest, acting to prevent a future President Trump’s efforts to hinder the roll out of EVs.  (Until he eventually, inevitably pisses off The Donald so much that he’s pushed out of favor).

All this is to say that if you’re looking for an acceleration of the EV transition, or even for it to stay on course, you really shouldn’t put much trust in the Trump/Musk alliance.

The only other slither of hope I have is that a second Trump administration will be as legislatively inert as his first. If his ambitions are hamstrung by a divided Congress, and no new climate-related laws are passed, Trump’s impact will be limited to a four-year pause in the US’s climate action. (That’s the best-case scenario - Louie).

But even if Trump’s agenda is enacted unchallenged, I believe that the private sector will press on with the low-carbon transition, by and large. Companies like continuity.  A smart CEO will have a long-term strategy that is adjusted, rather than busted, following a change of government.  Moreover, because so much of big business is multinational, corporations tend to align with the toughest regulations of all the jurisdictions they operate in.  In practice, this means lots of US companies are, or will, conform with European Union rules, like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

Of course some companies, like those in the oil and gas sector, will chase a Trump sugar high and ramp up climate-harming operations. Many others, though, will keep their eyes on the grander prize and continue working toward net-zero goals.  In 2016, Trump ran hard on saving the US coal industry.  Did his presidency delay its inevitable demise, even by a day?  I’d argue no.

Yes, many Americans will vote Trump because they like the idea of tax cuts (even though his are targeted at the already wealthy) and some because of the promise of cheaper energy (even though this isn’t really in the gift of the presidency).  Consumers and businesses like these things, make no bones about it.  I like them!

But if your longer term ambitions include addressing the climate threat for the sake of humanity, there’s only one way to vote on Tuesday.  

For what it’s worth, Unpacking Climate Risk endorses Kamala Harris for President of the United States of America.