With the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP29, fast approaching, the world’s attention is focused on the urgent need for unified action against the climate crisis. With Donald Trump reclaiming the White House in 2024, the United States (US) approach to climate policy may face another major shift, which could impact not only US environmental efforts but also global climate progress. Can do.
Donald Trump announced on June 1, 2017, that the US would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Due to the agreement’s formal withdrawal process, this withdrawal was finalized on November 4, 2020 – the day after the 2020 presidential election – making the US the first country to officially withdraw from the global agreement. The move marked a significant shift in the country’s climate policy and its stance on international cooperation in addressing climate issues.
Trump’s return to office signals a possible repudiation of his administration’s policies, which previously saw the US pull out of the Paris Agreement, relax federal environmental regulations and increase fossil fuel production. His America First energy strategy was prioritized, a direction that is now in danger of being reversed. As the world prepares for COP29, the international community will be keeping a close eye on how Trump’s policies unfold and how they may affect the dynamics of the global climate crisis.
Under Trump’s administration, we can expect a return to federal climate initiatives. His previous term prioritized deregulation and energy dominance, focusing primarily on fossil fuel resources. Should they continue this trajectory, we could see a reduction in emissions standards for industries that have a large impact on the climate, including energy, transportation, and manufacturing. Less federal action, in turn, would weaken US influence in climate discussions on the global stage, signaling a shift in stance from climate leadership to energy independence.
For the US, which has historically been one of the largest contributors to global carbon emissions, a federal withdrawal from active climate measures would send a discouraging signal to the international community. Other countries may question the US’s commitment to climate goals, potentially leading to delays or cuts in their own climate promises. After all, the global fight against the climate crisis depends on coordinated action, and a retreat by the world’s largest economy could weaken collective resolve.
In Trump’s previous administration, fossil fuels – particularly oil, gas and coal – took center stage. A renewed emphasis on fossil fuels would mean increased oil and gas production, as well as additional public lands opened up for drilling. Under such policies, we may see fewer incentives for clean energy development, less regulatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions, and continued support for conventional energy industries. This focus on fossil fuels would be contrary to global goals of reducing carbon emissions and achieving a net-zero future.
For the US, the implications are serious, as fossil fuels are one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Further investment in fossil fuels will not only hinder emissions reduction goals, but could also lock up carbon-intensive infrastructure for decades to come, delaying the clean energy transition. Globally, Trump’s stance could slow progress in renewable energy markets, especially in emerging economies that look to the US as a model for industrial policy.
While Trump’s administration may scale back federal initiatives, state and local governments in the US have proven flexible in their commitment to green policies. We can expect environmentally progressive states like California, New York, and Washington to continue to lead climate action through their own legislation and investments in renewable energy. Despite reduced federal support, local governments will likely accelerate their climate resilience programs, focusing on energy efficiency and emissions reductions.
This patchwork approach has been seen before, with states implementing measures independently of federal guidance. However, without the scale of federal funding and policy support, the reach and effectiveness of these state-level programs may be limited. States with ambitious climate goals may face challenges in scaling up their programs, given that federal incentives and resources have historically played a key role in supporting climate-friendly infrastructure and technology.
Even with a reduction in federal climate action, the private sector will likely continue its push toward green technology and sustainable practices. Investors, corporations and consumers have demonstrated a growing commitment to sustainability. Leading companies are not only striving to meet environmental, social and governance (ESG) norms, but also responding to consumer demand for eco-friendly products. In recent years, the market for clean technology has been growing steadily, with investments in renewable energy, electric vehicles and carbon capture technology. This trend is unlikely to reverse, even if federal policies become less supportive.
In fact, moving away from federal regulation may encourage some sectors within the private market to take an even more active stance on climate issues. For example, leading tech companies are committing to ambitious sustainability goals and advancing technologies such as wind, solar and hydrogen energy. Although changes in federal priorities may slow industry-wide acceptance, it is likely that companies with sustainability-focused strategies will continue to drive the green economy.
Internationally, Trump’s presidency could reverberate through COP29 discussions and global climate commitments. While the US has traditionally been a major player at climate summits, Trump’s previous withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has weakened multilateral climate goals, and similar moves can be expected. The prospect of a renewed US withdrawal from global climate cooperation could create hesitation among other countries, especially those seeking to balance economic growth with climate action. For developing countries, which rely on funding and support from wealthy countries to implement green policies, changes in US policy could complicate the path to achieving their climate goals.
Trump’s re-election could also deepen the divide between countries that want to take aggressive climate action and those that prioritize economic growth over environmental concerns. As one of the world’s largest economies, the United States has the potential to drive or hinder international progress. With other major polluters, such as China and India, closely monitoring America’s climate stance, a lack of US leadership could reduce the effectiveness of future climate initiatives.
The global momentum for climate action, while resilient, faces significant challenges with Trump’s return. Nonetheless, climate remains a serious issue, with impacts that span borders and political affiliations. As COP29 approaches, the world’s focus will shift from relying solely on political leaders to embracing a broader coalition of stakeholders—scientists, activists, businesses, and local governments—to keep climate goals within reach.
The urgency to tackle the climate crisis is more pressing than ever. Even if Trump’s administration backtracks on climate, growing consensus within the private sector and civil society could serve as a counterbalance. The challenge now is for states, cities, companies and communities to stick to their environmental commitments. As public awareness of climate issues grows, demand for sustainable practices will continue to shape markets and drive technological advancements. The stakes are high, but the global resolve for a sustainable future may still face political tides.
In a world where climate impacts know no boundaries, America’s role remains critical. As we look towards COP29 and beyond, the need for collective action has never been clearer. No matter who sits in the White House, the journey toward a climate-resilient future must continue – bold, determined, and united.
This article is written by Kaviraj Singh, CEO and Director, Arthood and Sumit Kaushik, Research Scholar, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat.
