Donald Trump’s re-election as President of the United States is a crucial turning point for climate action and energy policy. Trump’s administration continues to pursue climate policy that strongly diverges from his predecessor’s climate-friendly actions and policies pushed forward by former President Joe Biden. From withdrawing from international agreements to promoting fossil fuels, Trump’s second term heralds a sea change in both domestic and global climate strategies. The article explores what his presidency may mean for clean energy, fossil fuels, and international climate action.
A Fossil Fuel Revival in the Making
Central to Donald Trump’s energy policy is a strong commitment to strengthening the fossil fuel industry. Oil companies gave Trump’s campaign a significant amount of money, and he promised to increase domestic oil and gas production. His administration will:
Ease Regulations: Trump will declare a “National Emergency” to make it easier for the federal administration to quickly acquire approval for new drills, the construction of pipelines, refineries and reactors. All this will do away with red tape and more fossil fuel extraction
Resume Arctic Drilling: Before that, Trump will end Biden’s moratorium on oil drien clean energy jobs increased by 4.2% in 2023—twice the national employment rate.
Blows to Renewable Enelling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This means that environmentally sensitive areas will again boom.
Coal Industry Revival: While the employment in the coal industry during Trump’s first term declined as the market shifted toward natural gas and renewables, he has reaffirmed his commitment to reviving coal production.
This fossil fuel emphasis is a testament to Trump’s energy security above climate concerns, which is the opposite of Biden’s green energy policies.
The Death Knell for Biden’s Climate Achievements
The IRA, signed into law by Joe Biden in 2022, marked the biggest federal investment in clean energy ever made in the United States. It stumped up $369 billion to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which were applied to:
Subsidies for wind, solar, and nuclear energy projects.
Tax rebates for EVs, heat pumps, and energy-efficient appliances.
Investments that spurred nearly $450 billion in private-sector green energy initiatives.
Trump has always opposed the IRA, referring to it as a “Green New Scam.” He has promised to repeal the provisions of the bill, including the $7,500 EV tax credit and clean energy funds not spent. The rollback could hamper the momentum built during Biden’s administration when clean energy jobs increased by 4.2% in 2023—twice the national employment rate.
Blows to Renewable Energy
Renewable energy has already taken a beating with Trump’s re-election:
Project Delays: Canadian solar manufacturer Helene paused a $150 million solar cell manufacturing project in Minnesota, citing uncertainty under Trump’s administration.
Market Declines: Renewable energy stocks, such as NextEra and Sunrun, have plummeted, reflecting diminished investor confidence in the sector’s prospects.
Policy Shift: Trump’s focus on “energy resilience” emphasizes traditional energy sources, sidelining renewables like wind and solar.
In addition, Trump’s promise to end offshore wind projects on his first day in office would severely affect this growing part of the energy market.
The Paris Agreement and International Climate Leadership
The U.S. is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and its actions will play a significant role in international climate efforts. Trump’s expected withdrawal from the Paris Agreement by January 2026—a repeat of his first-term action—could undermine global climate ambitions. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C (3.6°F), ideally capping it at 1.5°C (2.7°F).
Environmentalists warn that U.S. disengagement may embolden other nations to scale back their commitments. By contrast, Biden’s administration aimed to halve emissions by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Trump’s reversal of these goals could lead to a significant rise in global emissions.
Moreover, Trump’s withdrawal from international aid commitments—including Biden’s $500 million pledge for the Amazon rainforest—signals reduced U.S. support for global climate mitigation efforts.
State-Level Climate Action as a Counterbalance
Many U.S. states remain committed to their own climate goals even as the federal government rolls them back. Consider:
California’s Leadership: California is pursuing 100% clean electricity and mandating that 80% of new vehicles sold by 2035 are electric. These sorts of actions will continue, at least with potential federal pushback.
Local Initiatives: Other states have taken similar measures, such as renewable energy mandates and electric vehicle incentives, which could help sustain some progress in emissions reductions.
However, Trump’s attempts to block state-level EV expansion plans by denying waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency could limit their effectiveness.
Economic Implications of Climate Policy Reversals
The economic impacts of Trump’s climate policy shifts are multifaceted. On one hand, deregulation and fossil fuel expansion may create jobs in traditional energy sectors. On the other hand, they risk undermining the burgeoning clean energy industry, which has been a significant source of job growth and innovation.
For example:
Clean energy jobs increased by 142,000 in 2023 due to investments in wind, solar, and battery technologies. Gains could be halted under Trump’s fossil fuel-centric policies.
Less support for green technologies can deter private investment. Market reactions to Trump’s re-election show this.
Navigating a Changing Climate Landscape
The return of Donald Trump to the White House marks a critical juncture for U.S. climate and energy policy. His administration has been fixated on fossil fuels and deregulation-trends that sharply clash with the green energy momentum set during the tenure of Joe Biden. State-level initiatives and global pressures may soften the blow in some areas, but the direction as a whole signals a rollback of climate progress on both domestic and international fronts.
At the same time as the globe wrestles with its growing burden of climate, stakes have perhaps never been any higher. Four years from now, it would become clear as to whether U.S. can effectively align energy security needs with more compelling urgent needs toward action on the climate or becomes doubly entrenched behind policies that maximize immediate gains even though they short-term sustain.
