© Charlotte Cuthbertson / The Epoch Times
A second Donald Trump presidency is likely to not only increase US emissions, but could also make it harder for other countries to push for climate change policies. But the damage may already be done, experts say.
Trump has been vocal about his plans to pull back from US president Joe Biden’s climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and boost oil and natural gas production. According to a Carbon Brief analysis, a Trump victory on 5 November could lead to an additional 4bn tonnes of US emissions by 2030.
Trump is also likely to oppose increased federal regulation of emissions reporting, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) climate disclosures rule, Jon McGowan, a business and administrative law attorney, told Green Central Banking.
“It’s highly likely that if Trump is elected, there will not be any sort of reporting at a national level, but what we’re seeing is a trend at the state level,” he said, referring to California’s climate disclosure law passed in 2023.
But a Trump presidency wouldn’t just have consequences on climate change policy in the US. It could also have an impact on global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Trump’s rollback of climate policies during his first term already had an effect on rising emissions, not just domestically but globally as well, due to increased gas exports. Under Trump’s watch, the US became the world’s largest producer of crude oil and gas, a position it maintained until 2022.
During his first term, Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement and his campaign has said he’s likely to do so again. He could also withdraw the US from the UNFCCC, the underlying framework for many global climate talks such as Cop.
Withdrawing from both agreements is legally possible, McGowan said.
“The president was able to join it, and then the president was able to leave it. Under the current version of it he does have the ability to leave [the agreements],” he said.
Because the US joined the Paris Agreement by executive order instead of having it approved by Congress, it is not legally binding. However, the UN has asked the International Court of Justice to provide an opinion on the obligations countries have around climate change, which could potentially have legal effects and lead to lawsuits.
Meanwhile a conservative guide called Project 2025 with ties to Trump has outlined its wish for the US to pull out of global financial institutions, including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund “and terminate its financial contribution to both institutions”.
Withdrawing from the development banks could have large implications for low-income countries as the US is the largest shareholder of the World Bank. While the green transition isn’t just the only issue that multilateral development banks contribute financing to, it is an issue that many American conservative politicians have pushed against.
Central bankers are worried about the effects of a potential second Trump presidency on geopolitics. Nearly 97% of those surveyed in UBS’s annual reserve manager survey said they believed the world is moving towards a “multipolar world” between the US, Europe and China, while 92% believed a Trump presidency would lead to an increase in global protectionism.
In comparison, only 16% of respondents felt climate change was one of the main risks to the global economy.
Michael Gerrard, professor at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said that although legally possible, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and UNFCCC would have “devastating effects worldwide”.
“Many other countries might also slow down their efforts, asking why they should act if the richest country and the historically biggest emitter isn’t,” he said.
But the damage to the US’s global reputation was already done when Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement the first time, said J Timmons Roberts, a professor of environmental studies and sociology at Brown University.
“It was a reversal of momentum, and I think quite damaging to net international confidence going forward with this ambitious action. There are countries that are determined to keep acting on climate change with or without the US, but it’s much harder,” Roberts said.
This page was last updated October 8, 2024
Written by
Moriah Costa is the Editor-in-Chief of Green Central Banking and has over a decade of experience writing about banking and finance. She is an award-winning American journalist based in Paris and has written for major international publications, including Reuters, The Guardian, and S&P Global. Having grown up in water-stressed Arizona, she has always had a strong interest in bringing awareness to climate and environmental issues.
