Organisations and individuals working to address the climate crisis must now work even harder and smarter. That’s one clear takeaway from responses, globally and locally, to the United States election outcome.
Jason Staines and Melissa Sweet write:
On election day in the United States, the impacts of climate change were being widely felt – from floods to drought and unusually warm temperatures in many places. And yet, as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists headlined their report on 6 November, Americans elect a climate change denier (again).
“My guess is that we’ll be able to read last night’s election results in the geological record many millennia hence,” author and climate activist Bill McKibben told the publication.
Trump’s climate policy in his second term is expected to mirror his first, with a strong emphasis on fossil fuels and reduced regulatory oversight. A top priority will likely be a renewed withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, distancing the US from the global coalition committed to limiting temperature rise.
Trump has long argued that climate agreements like Paris unfairly restrict American industry and harm economic competitiveness, a stance he intends to continue pushing as president. By shifting focus to traditional energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas, his administration aims to drive job creation and energy independence, positioning the US as a leading producer of fossil fuels.
According to Associate Professor Christian Downie, from the Australian National University, Trump may go further and attempt to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the international treaty that underpins the Paris Agreement.
“This would cast the US further outside the global push to reduce dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, and make it harder for a subsequent president to rejoin the effort. Joining a treaty requires a two-thirds Senate majority, and legal experts are divided on whether Trump could exit a treaty without the same mandate,” Downie wrote in The Conversation.
Such actions will have significant implications domestically and internationally. The US, being one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, plays a critical role in global efforts to combat climate change.
A second departure from the Paris Agreement would send a clear signal that the US is stepping back from multilateral climate commitments, potentially weakening global momentum on emissions reductions. Environmental advocates warn that without US participation, other major emitters may also soften their commitments, complicating efforts to meet global targets.
Ahead of the election, Carbon Brief estimated that a second Trump presidency “could lead to an additional four billion tonnes of US emissions by 2030 compared with Joe Biden’s plans”. According to Carbon Brief, this would negate – twice over – all of the savings from deploying wind, solar and other clean technologies around the world over the past five years”.
Trump’s fossil-fuel-centric policy could also create friction with key trading partners who are prioritising renewable energy investments. The European Union and countries like Japan and South Korea have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, and many experts foresee tensions in trade if the US diverges sharply from these goals. For industries increasingly aligned with climate-conscious markets, Trump’s policies could prompt questions around sustainable supply chains, corporate responsibility, and environmental standards.
At home, Trump’s regulatory rollbacks are likely to impact environmental protections, easing restrictions on drilling, mining, and fracking, especially on federal lands. While this could benefit energy-producing states economically, it raises concerns about air and water quality and the long-term environmental impact.
As the world’s second-largest emitter, climate policy shifts under Trump could reshape the global climate agenda. With fewer regulatory constraints and a boost to fossil fuels, the US may experience an economic boon in energy sectors, but the international response will be one of concern, especially among nations committed to limiting climate impacts.
Action is the antidote
The incoming Trump presidency will loom large over the upcoming COP29 meeting, which begins on 11 November in Baku, Azerbaijan, where envoys from nearly 100 countries are already preparing for the talks, according to climate diplomacy strategist Alex Scott.
She says history is instructive, noting that countries largely stuck to their plans in 2001 when Bush quit Kyoto and 2016 when Trump quit Paris. “The vast majority of governments recognise climate change as the threat it is,” she wrote.
Many climate leaders are stressing the work of climate action will continue, regardless of who is in the White House.
In a long thread on X/Twitter, Oxfam America’s Director of Climate Justice, Ashfaq Khalfan, said the policies of a Trump administration will deeply harm US and global climate action.
“But any predictions that this is ‘game over’ for the climate are wrong,” he said. “The fight for climate action in the US will continue at the Federal, state and local level.”
Alex Scott said that even without federal support, continued, high-ambition actions from non-federal actors can achieve more than 48 percent emissions reductions by 2035.
Christiana Figueres, a former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, said the result “will be seen as a major blow to global climate action, but it cannot and will not halt the changes underway to decarbonise the economy and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement”.
“Clean energy technologies will continue to outcompete fossil fuels, not just because they are healthier, faster, cleaner and more abundant, but because they undercut fossil fuels where they are at their weakest: their unsolvable volatility and inefficiency,” she said.
The antidote to doom and despair, Figueres said, is “action on the ground, and it’s happening in all corners of the Earth”.
A US withdrawal from climate action under Trump need not deter other nations, according to Climate Action Network International.
In response to the election result, it said: “While the news that Trump plans to leave the Paris Agreement could cause initial anxiety at COP29, the world’s majority recognises that climate action does not hinge on who is in power in the US, and as we saw before and will see again, other countries will step up if the US reneges on their responsibilities and stands back. But the US will still be held accountable, by their own citizens as well as by governments and people across the world.”
In a statement titled ‘Clean energy progress won’t be Trumped, Climate Council Fellow Dr Wesley Morgan said: “Donald Trump’s climate denialism is completely out of step with the global push for climate action, putting communities and entire ecosystems at serious risk.
“The world is now grappling with increasingly unstable weather, resource conflicts, and economic shocks, all of which demand urgent, coordinated responses.
“If Trump abandons international climate agreements, he will take the US out of the room where the world’s future is shaped.
“The global shift to clean energy is accelerating, and Trump can’t stop it. This is a megatrend, and the world will keep moving forward on climate, with or without American leadership.”
And in an opinion piece for Guardian Australia, the chief executive of Climate Analytics, Bill Hare, says the result will put pressure on Australia to step up.
“The Australian Government, especially given its intention to host COP31, must play a strong diplomatic role to help ensure the fallout from the second Trump presidency is limited, and that international domestic action everywhere else continues to move ahead.” This will be crucial, with anti-renewable elements of the Coalition already pushing for Australia to abandon its commitments.
Health leaders
Croakey asked a number of experts for their views on a second Trump presidency in the context of climate change and the environment.
Dr Kate Wylie, Doctors for the Environment Australia
“Globally the biggest health concern will be the impact of Trump’s anti-climate action agenda. He will continue to expand oil and gas, which not only have terrible local health impacts (cancer, cardiovascular disease etc) but will drive dangerous global heating and climate change.
This is a disaster for health for everyone. It is absolutely unequivocal that climate change is harming the health of people and of the planet upon which we live.
All across the planet we see examples of the climate health emergency playing out in real time; droughts, fires, smoke, extreme weather events, sea level rise, storms and floods, putting increased demand on health services, causing death and disease everywhere we look. This places the election result well within the purview of healthcare.
Although Biden will still officially be US president at COP29, we know that this practically nullifies any hope for a push for a fossil fuel phase out from the US and gives climate laggards an excuse to lower their ambition.
We can only hope that Australia will recognise this threat to the future livability of our planet and work hard for meaningful action.”
Dr Stephen Parnis, emergency medicine specialist
“I envisage climate change denialists feeling empowered by this election result.”
Professor Melissa Haswell, Professor of Practice in Environmental Wellbeing, University of Sydney
The implications are “terrible – this is likely to cement three degrees plus” rise in global temperatures.
Professor Fran Baum AO, Professor of Health Equity, The Stretton Institute, The University of Adelaide
“I wonder if the US will even go [to COP]? The lack of leadership from the US at COP will be a threat to COP and its outcomes. There will be more oil and gas developments in the US and so any targets set at COP will be harder to meet.”
Professor Kent Buse, Co-CEO, and members of the Global Health 50/50 Collective
“If the World Health Organization is correct in claiming that climate change is indeed the biggest threat to health – then Trump’s promise of ‘drill, baby, drill’ and his antipathy to the Paris climate process will be potentially ruinous to the health of people and planet … with impacts felt long after his second term.”
Dr Lesley Russell, Adjunct Associate Professor, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, University of Sydney, columnist at Croakey
The COP Meeting “must recognise that the US role will change after January 20, 2025 in ways that are not easy to predict and prepare accordingly.”
• Also see Professor Nick Talley’s comments: On the United States election, some lessons from history
At the Guardian: ‘A wrecking ball’: experts warn Trump’s win sets back global climate action
More commentary from social media
https://x.com/thewyliekate1/status/1854317015508422910
See Croakey’s archive of articles on the US election and health
