"Will they be able to stop the progress from fossil fuels to clean energy? No, they won't. Trump can slow down the transition, but he cannot stop it completely". The summary, published in the New York Times, comes from an authoritative voice, that of John Podesta, successor to John Kerry as the US climate envoy in the last year of Joe Biden's term.
Trump's first weeks have been challenging as for the fight against climate change. The president signed out of the Paris Agreement, withdrew his delegation from the IPCC summit in China and started to dismantle the work of some of the Country's most important scientific institutions, starting with NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).The signs all seem to reflect one of his campaign slogans, 'drill baby drill', i.e. the promise to 'drill, drill, drill', while targeting clean sources and the Biden-era climate plan, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). So there is no doubt that Trump will tackle the energy transition with the intensity of a tsunami. The question, however, is not whether he will try, but whether he will succeed.
To examine this perspective, it is necessary to divide the field of analysis into two levels. The first is the internal US transition, the second is the global transition. In the first case, a suggestion on the potential outcomes is presented by Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group: Texas is the US state benefiting the most from the transition set in motion during Biden's four-year term.
The positive impact on job creation due to the incentives and subsidies of the IRA is primarily being felt in those states that traditionally vote Republican; therefore, strongly opposing those measures could result in a significant loss of support. Although Trump might not care about it, this is of utmost importance to the Republican congressmen and senators elected in those states, who could act as a guiding force for the Congress against the most extreme dismantling actions.
Currently, the American transition is more influenced by the market than by political decisions. According to Bremmer, "the combination of technological breakthroughs, accelerated expertise development, and reduced costs has resulted in clean energy being more cost-effective than fossil fuels in most markets". And that's everything the markets need to know. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2020, the US had an annual expenditure of 200 billion dollars on renewables. By 2023, the total had already amounted to 280 billion. In addition, the growth of artificial intelligence and data centres in the US will make the Country even more energy-intensive, and this will mainly benefit renewables and nuclear power.
However, the Trump tsunami will not be without effects, as it has once again opened up the possibilities for exploration and extraction on federal lands (and the US had already become a global oil and gas leader during the Biden years with those constraints). Moreover, it's unlikely that the framework of the Inflation Reduction Act will remain intact. The elements most at stake are the tax rebates for those who buy electric cars and the federal funds to improve the infrastructure of the charging stations. Offshore wind power is also at stake: it is what Trump often criticises most, as they are the renewable plants requiring the greatest number of approvals and permits.
In the new Trump era, there has been a significant and abrupt cultural shift in how sustainability is perceived, with some circles now considering it as irrelevant or even harmful, rather than essential for cultivating a reputation among customers and investors. The first sign came from the banks and investment funds that, in a convulsive chain reaction after Trump's victory, left the Net Zero Banking Alliance one after the other: now they will find it even easier to support or underwrite fossil energy extractions (even though being within the alliance had no real effect in decreasing that flow).
It is more challenging to try to understand what effects Trump's four years will have on international scenarios. The global energy transition has long had a predominantly Asian focus: half of the world's photovoltaic installations are in China, which will reach its peak greenhouse gas emissions five years earlier than expected. The Country with the fastest growing emissions, India, is increasingly turning towards decarbonisation as a strategic process to reduce the costs of its energy production.
Emerging, energy-intensive economies will face some difficulties, as their rapid expansion is hindered by credit access issues and a continued heavy reliance on coal. Public and private climate finance is crucial to accelerate their transitions, including with innovative instruments such as the Just Transition Energy Partnerships established at the COP26 in Glasgow. The US has already announced its decision to withdraw from the one with South Africa, leaving the future of similar initiatives with Vietnam and Indonesia unclear.
The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is concerning, given that the global transition requires a careful balance of competition and cooperation. According to UK climate envoy Rachel Kyte, the international community should prepare to operate without the support of the US in the foreseeable future. This could be a problem especially for scientific research and climate finance, especially for those initiatives that are more difficult to maintain through traditional market dynamics. This category includes projects focused on adapting to climate changes or addressing compensation for harm and damage resulting from extreme weather events. The US has already announced its withdrawal from the damage and loss fund, established only two years ago. The worst-case scenario would be a chain reaction in which other Countries decide, driven by cynicism, strategic interests or political expediency, to imitate the US in dismantling their climate policies. The withdrawal of Milei's Argentine delegation from the COP29 in Baku was already a concerning sign in this regard.