Trump’s re-election threatens climate change fight as global warming displays its most devastating face

2024 will be remembered as the year in which Donald Trump — the presidential candidate with the most anti-scientific and anti-environmentalist discourse — won again in the U.S. despite his dark record on climate issues. This year will in all likelihood not be the hottest year on the planet in millennia, even though it will close as the warmest since records began. But it will not go down in history simply because that terrible crown will not last long: the advance of climate change, fed by the burning of fossil fuels, is accelerating due to the loss of the planet’s capacity to absorb the huge amounts of gases humanity is emitting, some experts warn. In fact, the previous record for the hottest year dates back to 2023.

But this crisis is not about statistics or record temperatures that often only last a moment; it is largely about mud and death, like those left in Spain by the devastating storms of two weeks ago. It is also about streets devastated by two consecutive hurricanes in the U.S. at the beginning of October. And about the historic floods that two weeks earlier inundated Central Europe. This crisis is about meteorological monsters, about extreme phenomena “that are becoming more frequent and intense” due to climate change and that are taking “our society out of the conditions” in which it had lived until now, warns Leonie Wenz of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “Photos like those that have appeared in newspapers around the world [of the floods in Spain] make the climate damage very palpable,” she says.

Even though these extreme events are becoming more evident and numerous, as science has been warning us for years, the commander-in-chief of climate denialism is returning to the White House. Trump pulled his country out of the Paris Agreement in his first term, something that many take for granted he will do again. He also left UNESCO and the World Health Organization. In short, he broke with everything that smacked of multilateralism. The climate struggle, which brings together representatives of 200 countries under the umbrella of the UN every year at summits to make progress in reducing emissions while attempting to achieve some justice in the distribution of economic burdens, has for years been the most multilateral of all forums.

Trump’s victory came just days before the start of the COP29 climate summit, which began on Monday in the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, and runs to November 22. The conference is due to agree on a new climate finance target to be applied from 2025. That is, how much money will be mobilized (either through loans or non-repayable aid) to allow countries with fewer resources to wean themselves off fossil fuels and prepare for the worst effects of climate change. In 2009, it was established that $100 billion should be made available from 2020. But now this must be increased. “Developed countries think in terms of billions, but in the developing world they talk about trillions,” say sources from the European Commission. The problem will not only be how much needs to be spent, but also who should benefit and, above all, who should put up the money. So far, it has only been developed countries, with the EU at the forefront, but Brussels wants other actors, such as China, to also commit to this financing.

The EU also wants to open a debate on the international financial architecture, for example, by proposing taxes on maritime transport and international aviation. But the development of this summit is complicated. In addition to the handicap that the presidency of the COP — essential for the development of the negotiations — had already been assigned to a second consecutive petrostate after pressure from Russia at the previous summit, there is the blow of the overwhelming results in the U.S., a key player. The negotiating team heading from Washington to Baku is that of the current Democratic administration, and will be headed by John Podesta. But it will continue to be a lame duck, and even more so with Trump expected to put the climate edifice built by Biden over the last four years in his sights, having already knocked down more than 100 environmental regulations in his previous term.

The year 2024 is very reminiscent of 2016 and the summit held in Marrakesh. The ghost of Trump’s first victory haunted the conference. The same doubt was in the minds of many activists, experts, and negotiators then as it is now: is it better for the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Agreement or to adopt a damaging obstructionist stance from within in a process that is burdened by the fact that decisions must be taken by consensus? Valvanera Ulargui, director of the Spanish Office of Climate Change, offers her opinion: “We are not clear on the details of how the new administration intends to act on international climate-related issues, but in the event that the U.S. were to turn its back on the Paris Agreement again, which would be very sad, the agreement has shown in recent years that it has been able to survive without the U.S.”

The Marrakesh summit closed with a political declaration that the climate fight was “irreversible.” Asked whether another similar text is possible in Baku, sources from the European Commission point out that the situation is different from eight years ago and that “care must be taken.” Indeed, the world is very different to that of 2016, for better and for worse.

On the international front, the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, with direct attacks on the United Nations, complicate the multilateralism that Trump rejects. Experts assume that the United States — currently the largest exporter of oil and gas on the planet — will not be able to help developing nations to move away from fossil fuels or protect themselves from climate devastation. What happens at home is another matter entirely.

The “hoax” campaign

Trump’s favorite word on the campaign trail when talking about the environment has been “hoax.” He’s repeated it at every rally: global warming seems like a scam to him, as does the Green New Deal, the pact proposed by the left wing of the Democratic Party that he has rebranded as the Green New Scam. His insistent slogan “drill, baby, drill” was one of the most applauded by his supporters, enthusiastic about the idea of promoting oil and gas exploration, fracking, and coal mining. They also welcomed hearing Trump falsely dismiss concerns about rising sea levels, even though the survival of vast portions of the American continent, including areas like the Gulf of Mexico, depends on stopping warming.

Like almost everything else, what exactly Trump’s return to the White House will lead to is an unknown. Will his administration really pose an existential threat to the planet, given that during his previous presidency he cut more than 100 environmental regulations? Or will the economic interests of his entourage and Republican politicians hold him back? Optimists have some reasons for hope: despite his rhetoric in defense of coal, it was during his term in office, in 2019, that renewables overtook that fuel. Furthermore, emissions during Trump’s four years in office did not skyrocket in the U.S. either.

Biden’s administration had promised to cut emissions by 40% by 2030 (compared to the 50% recommendation that scientists have made to major economies). Trump has promised to immediately cancel the spending planned in the current administration’s flagship legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, which, under its unsexy name, hides the most ambitious climate regulation in U.S. history. However, although it is a law pushed by Democrats, according to calculations by The New York Times, 80% of the money spent so far has gone to Republican counties, whose politicians and businessmen do not want divestment. Whether Trump intends to listen to them or not also remains to be seen.

Abby Hopper, CEO of the U.S. Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the photovoltaic lobby, explains: “I am quite optimistic about the continuation of the IRA because it has proven to be working. The renaissance of the domestic industry in this country is closely tied to the policies of that legislation. As you track where investments are going, both in terms of manufacturing investments, deployment investments, and innovation investments, you see that they are going all over the U.S., regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democratic state.” Hopper stresses that the prospects of increased demand linked to the advance of AI and data centers means that this is not “a time to choose between technologies, but to add them together.”

What is certain is that Trump will favor the oil industry, a generous donor to his campaign, by lifting restrictions on methane. He will also give permission for new gas infrastructure. The fossil fuel industry celebrated his victory last Tuesday, just as environmental groups have vowed to stand up to him.

And then there is Elon Musk, one of the people who contributed the largest amount of money to his re-election. Everything points to the fact that, in exchange for this shower of dollars, he will hold a key position in the Trump administration. Part of his fortune is built on the electric car, which used to be another of the Republican’s favourite targets until, as Musk’s support grew, he changed his rhetoric on these vehicles. The richest man in the world defines himself as “pro-environment,” and previously criticized Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris Agreement.

Following Trump’s election victory, although without mentioning it explicitly, the UN’s executive secretary for climate change, Simon Stiell, stressed the economic aspect of the situation: “The global energy transition is inevitable and is accelerating, making it one of the greatest economic opportunities of our era,” he said. “Preparations for the COP continue apace, because the fundamental facts remain unchanged: global warming is already hitting all nations.”

Even as renewable energy advances soar, global fuel consumption has not reached its limit. Current government policies will lead to warming of 3.1ºC. At the moment, when extreme weather events are becoming more severe, warming is at 1.2ºC, always taking pre-industrial levels as a reference. Emissions are not being held in check and with each passing year, without drastic cuts, the window to avoid more catastrophic warming closes further.

“We are seeing the first signs of an acceleration of warming,” warns Johan Rockström, director of PIK. And among the possible causes that scientists are considering is “that the Earth system is beginning to lose its capacity to absorb carbon.” In other words, oceans and forests may be losing their effectiveness in trapping carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. The World Meteorological Organization warned of this danger of feedback a few days ago, before Trump’s re-election, which has left so many stunned. “Now is the time to move forward, to reaffirm ambition and accelerate our climate commitments and our climate financing,” says Ulargui.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition