The United States election outcome sends a profoundly negative signal to the global climate and environmental community. President-elect Donald Trump, a vocal skeptic of climate change, is poised to return to the White House, likely leading to a drastic reduction in green-energy spending while increasing fossil fuel subsidies. With a track record of “anti-intellectualism” and science denial, Trump’s transactional approach to policy, epitomized by “the art of the deal”, raises questions about his willingness to engage in any climate or environmental discussions. It is expected to unleash an international order characterized by a “deal-making” mentality, which is not conducive to global sustainable development.

During his previous term (2017-21), Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement, asserting that the US should not bear responsibility for global-emissions reductions under his “America first” premise. He viewed the agreement as a threat to US economic growth and jobs in the mining and fossil fuel sectors. Exiting the Paris Agreement would diminish US influence in international climate negotiations and align the US with only a few nations outside the accord, potentially leading to reduced emissions reporting and climate finance obligations. While leaving the Paris Agreement is straightforward, withdrawing the US from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is more challenging as it would require Senate approval. However, if accomplished, it would affect the UNFCCC’s budget and the dynamics of future COP climate summits. The US’ likely retreat from key global climate frameworks could create opportunities for non-Annex 1 countries to lead and benefit from an early transition.

At the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) held in Baku, Azerbaijan, stakeholders from different sectors began to discuss: If the US really withdraws from the international climate framework, how should the climate finance gap be filled? The most feasible solution at present is leveraging funds from private philanthropic foundations or family foundations. Interestingly, some participants privately asserted that the US’ influence on global climate governance is already limited, but its absence may bring new opportunities for global climate governance, promote the transfer of leadership in global climate governance, and create opportunities for developing countries to take the lead. China, whose total carbon emissions have surpassed the US’ since 2008, will undoubtedly play a more important role in global climate governance, especially in the technology transfer and industrialization of green energy in countries taking part in the Belt and Road Initiative. At the same time, next year’s climate summit, COP30, will be held in Brazil. The combined power of the BRICS countries and the Global South will play a key role in achieving the global carbon neutrality goal in 2050. India, for example, has recently demonstrated its determination to advance its leadership by investing heavily in and developing green hydrogen. This pattern change may become a new driving force for global climate governance.

Another significant implication of the Trump administration on global sustainability is the likely slowdown of green innovation in the US because of restricted research and development budgets in sustainability fields. This could impede global decarbonization efforts through green technologies. Trump may also increase tariffs on green technologies and products manufactured in China, such as solar panels and electric vehicles. Notably, the first term of Trump limited local research on climate change. Even the engagement of American researchers and scientists in writing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports is limited, especially for academics in state universities controlled by federal funding. These will slow down the pace of net-zero transition in the US, which has trickle-down effects for the rest of the world. Trump’s recent announcement of Chris Wright, an oil company CEO, as his choice to lead the Department of Energy signals a significant shift away from green energy progress in the US. Wright, a vocal critic of climate change initiatives and global cooperation on the issue who has openly stated “there is no climate crisis”, dismisses the notion of an energy transition and emphasizes the need for expanding oil and gas production. His alignment with Trump’s agenda to maximize fossil fuel use and opposition to climate action will undermine renewable energy advancements and technological developments in the US.

On climate justice and equity, Trump reduced budgets in his first term for environmental departments and agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, thereby weakening domestic climate initiatives. Despite devastating events such as Hurricane Helene, which caused catastrophic damage, Trump consistently failed to acknowledge the connection between such disasters and climate change, potentially minimizing the urgency of addressing climate impacts. One clear example of this approach was the Trump administration’s advocacy for a significantly higher discount rate of 7 to 10 percent to calculate the present-day value of future climate damages, compared to the 3 percent rate used during the Obama administration. A higher discount rate diminishes the importance of future damages by assigning less weight to their impacts, effectively lowering estimated costs. This tactic not only downplays the severity of climate damages but also fosters intergenerational inequity by disregarding the long-term consequences for future generations. The refusal to recognize the link between climate change and natural disasters perpetuates a harmful cycle of inaction, undermining efforts to address the escalating risks of climate change.

As we navigate Trump’s post-truth, anti-science era, the pressing question remains: Can we address the climate crisis effectively? Reframing and coalition-building could serve as micro-level interventions to foster bottom-up or middle-out organizational change. During the Biden administration, the Inflation Reduction Act was a successful bill that reframed climate-related renewable energy investments as a means to control inflation, lower household energy costs and boost the economy. While framing climate change as an existential threat has not been effective or may not even be allowed under the Trump administration, presenting green technologies as a way to gain a competitive advantage for the US could be a strategy to persuade Trump to continue funding climate technologies. Coalition-building is also key to maintaining climate action happening at different levels, especially for coalitions with diverse stakeholders, ranging from multinational corporations, and international organizations to local civil society.

It is important to recognize that despite federal control, states still retain a degree of autonomy and control over many aspects. At the COP29 in Azerbaijan, the official US delegation and side events organized by the Biden administration attracted little attention. However, the “America Is All In” pavilion stood out. This coalition, comprising states, cities, indigenous tribes, businesses, schools, religious and cultural organizations, represents “whole-of-society mobilization” in the US, covering over 60 percent of the national economy. During a news conference at COP29, Washington state Governor Jay Inslee, speaking as an alliance representative, underscored that federal election outcomes should not hinder states’ ongoing efforts to promote clean energy and improve energy efficiency standards. In a similar vein, California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, openly voiced his continued support for green technology development and collaboration with China regardless of the presidency during his visit to Hong Kong in 2023. This shows how alliances that operate outside the federal government have the potential to serve as critical drivers of climate action. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, environmental policies often take a back seat in the Legislative Council. One prominent example was the unsuccessful implementation of the waste-charging program, which is still lacking a clear roll-out plan. The reason behind this phenomenon could be the lack of environmental constituency in the Election Committee. Given Hong Kong’s pledge to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, it could be tremendously beneficial for Hong Kong to establish a cross-sectoral and cross-tier action alliance. It could serve as a catalyst for progress and ensure regular oversight of government initiatives on decarbonization.

Community-based actions are another source of hope, with civil societies and academia continuing to drive initiatives to sustain impact at different levels. Former UN Climate Change executive secretary Christiana Figueres emphasized that while the election results may have been a setback for global climate action, efforts continue to decarbonize the economy and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. “The vital work happening in communities everywhere to regenerate our planet and societies will continue, imbued with a new, even more determined spirit today,” she said. As the world prepares to embark on a new phase of international climate cooperation with the committed New Collective Quantified Goal of $300 billion for developing countries to cope with climate damages, actors worldwide will persist in the battle against the shared climate crisis, striving to advance progress amid global turmoil.

The author, a climate policy researcher at Princeton University, is deputy convener of the Youth and Capacity Building Sub-Committee, the Council for Carbon Neutrality and Sustainable Development.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.