During a victory speech early Wednesday, Donald Trump boasted of the country’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas.
“We have more liquid gold than any country in the world. More than Saudi Arabia. We have more than Russia. Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold,” Trump told Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a former environmental lawyer and presidential candidate who could play a role in shaping health policy in the next Trump administration.
Trump’s goal in a second term will be to boost fossil-fuel production, his campaign has said. But he will be entering the White House after what will almost certainly be the hottest year on record in 2024. Greenhouse gas emissions, which trap heat and mainly come from burning fossil fuels, reached an all-time high last year. And global temperatures are on track to rise to a level that scientists say will heighten the risk of much more dangerous climate impacts, from more destructive storms and heat waves to rising sea levels that could swamp coastal cities.
Trump, however, has long cast doubt on the scientific consensus that the Earth is getting hotter primarily because of human-caused emissions. In recent months, Trump railed against wind turbines and electric vehicles, which experts say would help curb climate pollution, and he threatened to claw back unspent climate funding.
Yet, a second Trump administration will not be able to stop the country’s transition to cleaner sources of energy, analysts and activists say. Costs for a lot of those technologies are falling fast. Companies are under pressure from their customers and investors to deal with climate change. And states led by Democrats and Republicans alike are reaping economic benefits from new factories and power plants that have received government support.
“It’s not that our job hasn’t gotten harder” with Trump’s reelection, says Mindy Lubber, chief executive of Ceres, a nonprofit that advocates for clean energy. “But there is a legitimate vein of opportunism, of entrepreneurial spirit, of new jobs, of new economics, of business people, of entrepreneurs, of business school leaders who are saying, ‘We need to deal with climate change because of the financial risk, the material risk and, of course, the human risk.’”
Other advocacy groups echoed Lubber.
“There is no denying that another Trump presidency will stall national efforts to tackle the climate crisis and protect the environment, but most U.S. state, local, and private sector leaders are committed to charging ahead,” Dan Lashof, U.S. director of the World Resources Institute, said in a statement. “And you can count on a chorus of world leaders confirming that they won’t turn their back on climate and nature goals.”
Jason Grumet, chief executive of a trade group called the American Clean Power Association, noted there was a lot of investment and growth in the wind and solar industries during Trump’s first term.
“Private sector clean energy investment is bringing jobs and economic opportunity to small towns and rural communities across the nation, while hundreds of new factories have come online in states that have seen far too many good jobs move overseas,” Grumet said in a statement. He said the industry is “committed to working with the Trump-Vance Administration and the new Congress to continue this great American success story.”
However, Lubber cautioned that while companies might not abandon their climate initiatives, they may be reluctant to advertise them.
And that could have consequences.
“Leading companies often help companies that aren't as far along in their thinking understand why something is worth doing,” Rich Lesser, global chair of Boston Consulting Group, told NPR ahead of the election. “If the leading companies act in a responsible way, in a way that will build advantage for them, but they don't feel like they can talk about it, we will fail to help the broader set of companies understand why they should be taking this on, too.”
Proposals from some of Trump’s allies, including former administration officials, pose other risks for climate action. Some have called for abolishing federal programs that address climate change and repealing Biden administration-backed laws that give billions in funding and tax incentives for corporations and communities to cut emissions and prepare for the risks they face in a hotter world.
For example, conservative activists have been pushing to eliminate the Loan Programs Office at the Department of Energy. The office, which Trump tried to strip funding from during his first term, helps finance groundbreaking projects that can help cut emissions.
Without that kind of government investment in innovation, the United States would struggle to make deep cuts in climate pollution or to compete with China and other nations that are racing to dominate emerging technologies, says Tanya Das, who works on energy innovation at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
And there’s growing concern among climate scientists of political interference in Trump’s second term. One conservative proposal, called Project 2025, calls for eliminating the office at the Environmental Protection Agency that’s tasked with reducing pollution in minority communities, cutting back on monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions that fuel climate change and getting rid of the main government office that does atmospheric research.
Project 2025 also describes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — which includes the National Weather Service and offices that support fisheries and monitor air quality — as a "colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry," and they propose gutting it.
Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, but dozens of its writers and architects worked in his administration. And the plan’s vision for climate and energy policy aligns with the former president’s.
Trump is also expected to change how the U.S. engages in global efforts to deal with climate change. During his first term, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, which requires virtually every country on Earth to pledge how much they'll cut planet-warming pollution. Right now, world leaders are debating how to provide more climate funding to developing countries, which bear little responsibility for causing global warming but are suffering disproportionately from its impacts.
“I think it is of concern if we withdraw [from international climate efforts] or do not deliver on the kinds of commitments we've made, or exhibit less interest in those sorts of problems, because those are problems that have to be solved globally,” Vijaya Ramachandran, director for energy and development at The Breakthrough Institute, a research and advocacy group, told NPR before the election.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents the U.S. oil and gas industry, said in a statement that voters picked Trump based in part on his energy policies. “Energy was on the ballot, and voters sent a clear signal that they want choices, not mandates, and an all-of-the-above approach that harnesses our nation’s resources and builds on the successes of his first term,” API Chief Executive Mike Sommers said.
Despite the Biden administration's focus on limiting climate change, it has overseen a record amount of oil production.
U.S. oil and gas production is influenced by global prices: Companies drill more when prices are high and less when they’re low. U.S. presidents have very little sway over those corporate decisions and, ultimately, fuel prices.
Copyright 2024 NPR