A Second Trump Presidency Would Be a Planetary Disaster
A Republican victory in November would be an existential threat to climate action and a scorched-earth nightmare for the nation—and the world—simply cannot afford.
The 2024 U.S. presidential election is a referendum on whether or not America will be a partner or a roadblock to global climate action. Just a week after the U.S. election, the next global climate conference will work out the technical details and new global climate finance goal at Baku’s COP29. The U.S. election will set the tone and tenor of this important meeting. Whoever wins in November will determine if the United States will be a global partner to the diverse issues connected to climate, energy transition, and development finance—or a nation withdrawn at best and a hostile actor at worst.
Globally, climate-fueled events are costing us all $16 million per hour through wildfires, storms, and drought—amplifying livelihood insecurities and potentially putting the global sustainable development goals out of reach. The majority of Americans polled want to see climate policies that can address the climate shocks being felt today. But only the Democratic ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz has a plan to address these challenges.
The climate crisis does not exist in a political vacuum. That’s why the Biden-Harris administration has centered climate in various arenas: international aid, foreign policy, conservation, energy, and so much more. On President Biden’s first day in office, the administration rejoined the Paris Agreement and reversed many of the environmental rollbacks President Trump enacted. As Vice President, Kamala Harris worked tirelessly to pass the monumental Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA is among the world's largest single investment in climate to date, including incentives for renewables and expanding on programs for communities coping with climate and environmental injustices. A Harris-Walz administration would continue and expand off the IRA to address the climate and environmental challenges Americans are facing at home while maintaining emissions reduction targets that meet global climate goals.
A future President Harris would see America continuing its leadership role in global climate forums. She would address the myriad of climate challenges as economic opportunities that can be interwoven throughout domestic and global endeavors. A future President Harris would continue policies normalized around the world—like participating in the World Bank and in global climate forums in partnership. This is a future where the United States continues to wield influence and shape agendas on climate, security, and international development. This is in sharp contrast to what the other side is offering.
As president, Trump took the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, expanded oil development on previously protected lands, and slashed environmental protections that protect Americans from unsafe air and water. Environmentally, we can expect the same and much worse from a second Trump administration.
The Republican Platform this year was limited on details, but outlined core goals that align with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 playbook. In the past, republican presidents have aligned and adopted the Heritage Foundation’s agendas. For instance, President Reagan adopted roughly 60% of their Mandate for Leadership.
If Project 2025 is implemented it would represent an America in retreat. It would harm global cooperation on climate and potentially break multilateral forums. A Trump-Vance ticket is offering an America unmoored from geopolitical and economic reality; a future where the U.S. removes itself from the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the World Bank. Without U.S contributions to these institutions, though all must do more and reforms remain necessary, global climate action would be strained for most emerging and developing countries. Today, the U.S. is the largest contributor to the World Bank, which provides the lion’s share of global climate finance, amounting to $38.6 billion in 2023.
A Trump-Vance administration would—once more—remove the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and depart from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Detaching the United States from global climate frameworks would mean global climate goals are unlikely to be met. Coal-reliant nations like China, Australia, and India would have a free pass to continue to exploit coal despite the costs and risks, both nationally and globally. An unsustainable path towards 2.0°C or 3.0°C would become more likely.
America and the world cannot afford to ignore climate, especially when it’s cheaper, more beneficial economically, and avoids the worst climate consequences to face our climate reality head on. The world cannot afford a prospective U.S. presidential ticket hellbent on fostering global and domestic instability across the board. A ticket that considers science as fiction cannot act in the best interest of the American people at home nor abroad.
Elections are about the future, juxtaposed against the challenges of the present. Climate is today’s challenge and opportunity. A Trump-Vance ticket would be a scorched earth reality for our climate, inevitable energy transition, and the financing developing nations need. It is no competition—the world needs a future President Harris.
Note: The opinions expressed are solely that of the author and do not represent an endorsement from any of her current or past affiliated organizations.
