Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The annual climate change conference in 2016, in Marrakesh, Morocco, had an extremely sombre beginning, on the morning of November 6, a Monday. Just hours earlier, Donald Trump had been declared the winner of US Presidential elections, an event that threatened to turn the clock back on climate action. In the run-up to the elections, he had, at different times, described climate change as “an expensive hoax”, “nonsense” and even suggested that “it” had been “created by and for the Chinese”. But more importantly, he had promised to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a promise he duly delivered on.
Not surprisingly, the news of Trump’s election had come as a huge disappointment to those gathered for the Marrakesh conference, some of whom had devoted their entire careers to galvanising international climate action. A few of them were actually seen crying.
Trump’s re-election for a second term, now all but confirmed, once again comes ahead of a climate change conference, this one starting in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Monday. His victory, this time not as surprising as in 2016, brings a fresh round of uncertainty on climate action. A second Trump presidency might not entail a pull-out from Paris Agreement yet again — he does promise this though, on his campaign website — but could still slow down the momentum on climate action.
Trump has been severely critical of Joe Biden’s energy policies, many of which have been manifested through the incentives provided for clean energy in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and promised to pursue policies that “diametrically opposite”. He has said he would clear investments in fossil fuel projects, withdraw special incentives for electric vehicles, and undo emission regulations that “strangle” electricity production and reduce jobs.
If he does follow up on these promises, it would seriously jeopardise the emission reduction targets of the United States for 2030. As it is, the target of 50-52 per cent reduction over 2005 levels that the US has set for itself for 2030 is very modest. It translates to just about 45 per cent reduction over 2019 levels, barely matching the emission cuts that are required by the world as a whole in order to keep the 1.5 degree Celsius hope alive, and nowhere close to what is expected of the world’s biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases.
There are other reasons why Trump’s policies could result in a backward movement, not just for the United States but the world as a whole. Fresh investments in fossil fuel projects, as promised by Trump, could halt and reverse the recent trend of energy investments. Much more money is now being put in developing renewable energy projects globally than in legacy energy sources like oil or natural gas. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said global spending on clean energy technologies and infrastructure was expected to be about US$ 2 trillion in 2024, about double of what was going into traditional energy sources. In most regions of the world, solar energy had emerged as the cheapest option available, at least when the Sun is shining. Americans drilling more oil wells and gas fields could trigger similar activities elsewhere.
Same is the case with electric vehicles, which are seeing a rapid growth in adoption. Electric cars accounted for about 18 per cent of all cars sold globally in 2023, up from 14 per cent the previous year, and only 2 per cent five years earlier, according to IEA. Trump’s main objection has been that a large part of manufacturing in clean energy and electric vehicles is happening in China, a point he never tires of repeating. China offers a cost advantage which the United States is currently unable to match. Developing oil wells and gas fields means exploiting local resources that would create local jobs, a key theme in Trump’s vision. Similarly, traditional car manufacturing has a very large base in the United States.
The unique leverage that the United States has over international financial institutions and the control it enjoys over global financial flows makes it extremely crucial in the fight against climate change. Finance is one of the biggest hurdles to enhanced climate action, and the key agenda before the Baku climate conference is to increase the scale of climate finance for developing countries. An overhauling of the international financial institutions to make them aligned with climate change priorities is being worked upon. A US administration that is not fully invested in the global climate agenda makes these efforts a non-starter.
Trump is an undisguised climate-sceptic, but the United States does not have a stellar record on climate action even under other leaders. In fact, the lacklustre performance of the United States is the biggest reason why the world is going to most likely miss its 2030 emission reduction targets. A lot is blamed on Trump’s pull-out from the Paris Agreement, but the US never became part of its predecessor Kyoto Protocol too. Whether it is about emissions reduction, or providing financial or technological support to the developing countries, all legally mandated expectations, the United States has been found severely wanting in meeting its obligations.
Despite China being the largest emitter for the last nearly two decades, it is the United States that still has the largest share of historical emissions. It accounts for more than 20 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions since 1850. As such, it has the greatest responsibility to take climate action. That is how the international climate framework is structured. But between 1990 and 2023, the United States emissions have come down by less than five per cent. In the same period, the European Union, which accounts for about 12 per cent of historical emissions, has reduced its emissions by over 35 per cent.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
