Trump 2.0: What the 2024 Election Means for Energy and Climate Policy

The 2024 presidential election has ushered in a new administration under Donald Trump, yet the nation remains sharply divided over numerous issues, including energy and climate change policies. Experts have started assessing the potential implications of Trump’s second presidency, often referred to as “Trump 2.0,” for both domestic and international policy.

“Trump’s presidency will have huge reverberations for international policy,” remarked David Victor, a professor of innovation and public policy at the School of Global Policy and Strategy, in a Nature commentary.

Victor’s comments set the stage for a recent roundtable discussion centered on the effects of Trump’s return to office. The panel included Victor; Thad Kousser, a professor in the UC San Diego Department of Political Science; and Varun Sivaram, who served in the Biden administration as a senior advisor to U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry. Jade Hindmon, journalist and host of KPBS’ Midday Edition, moderated the event.

Held on November 18, the discussion explored key takeaways from the election results and their implications over the next four years. Topics included the U.S.’s stance on international agreements, the role of markets in decarbonization, bipartisan opportunities, and challenges in navigating public opinion on climate issues.

Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement

One major concern is Trump’s likely withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which he exited during his first term. President Joe Biden rejoined the accord, but experts predict Trump may pull out again, possibly as early as his first day back in office.

“I actually think it’s good for them to leave the Paris Agreement,” Victor stated. “All of these agreements work through consensus, and so if you have one country whose diplomats have a political brief to cause trouble, you’re better off not having them have a formal vote.”

Victor elaborated that while the absence of U.S. leadership in such agreements is concerning, it might be preferable to avoid disruption from within. He posed an important question: “The key, though, is, what does the rest of the world do?”

Market-Driven Decarbonization

Despite concerns about policy shifts, panelists agreed that markets will continue driving decarbonization efforts, regardless of the administration in power.

“There is bipartisan consensus on supporting the next generation of energy technology innovation,” noted Sivaram, who is also a senior fellow for energy and climate at the Council on Foreign Relations. He emphasized that technological advancements decoupling energy production from emissions will proceed independently of White House policies.

Victor supported this view, stating, “That revolution is underway, and it isn’t really affected by who’s in the White House. The President is not some Wizard of Oz who’s pulling all these levers and changing everything outside in the economy.”

Bipartisan Opportunities for Climate Action

Sivaram expressed cautious optimism about certain bipartisan initiatives continuing under Trump. “My hope is to still see research and development for the next generation of batteries and geothermal energy,” he said. He also highlighted nuclear power as a potential area for bipartisan collaboration, especially given the rise in energy demand fueled by artificial intelligence technologies.

Victor noted that Trump’s threats to defund the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a cornerstone of Biden’s climate agenda, may face resistance from Republican lawmakers. “Most of the funds are flowing to red states,” he pointed out, suggesting that fiscal benefits could sway Republicans to support the legislation despite Trump’s opposition.

Challenges of Political History

Historical patterns indicate that a unified government under one party, as the Republicans now enjoy, does not guarantee sweeping legislative victories. Trump’s party gained majorities in both the House and Senate, but narrow margins could prove problematic.

“I think we’re going to see a test over the next two years on whether history repeats itself,” Kousser observed. He recalled how past presidents, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Trump himself, faced significant legislative setbacks despite initial optimism.

“Obamacare is stronger, more popular, and has been more embraced by red state policymakers than ever since then,” Kousser added, highlighting the long-term resilience of major policies despite partisan attempts to dismantle them.

Victor suggested that Trump could also encounter resistance from fiscally conservative Republicans when proposing tax cuts. “People are going to start paying attention to costs and the deficit,” he explained. He predicted that moderate Republican senators, such as Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, could become pivotal figures, akin to Democratic Senator Joe Manchin during Biden’s presidency.

Public Opinion on Climate vs. Economic Concerns

Kousser underscored a notable disconnect between the increasing prevalence of climate disasters and their relatively low priority among voters. “Let’s look for where climate is among the top 10 issues that Americans said drove them to the polls,” he said. “It is nowhere. If you look at the Gallup poll on the biggest issues, you have to go to number 16 before you get energy and you have to go to number 21 before you get climate change.”

Hindmon asked Kousser to explain this apparent paradox. He attributed it to the overriding influence of economic concerns. “We saw voters’ views of the economy drive where this election went,” he said, noting that many political models accurately predicted Trump’s victory based on economic dissatisfaction.

Despite this, Kousser acknowledged a gradual shift in public opinion on climate change. “If you look at this question of the percentage of U.S. adults who say climate change is a major threat to the country, there’s been a strong majority in favor of that ever since 2016,” he said.

Isolationism and Administrative Challenges

Victor expressed concern about the Trump administration’s isolationist tendencies and their potential to hinder climate progress. He criticized bipartisan support for policies such as tariffs on China, which began under Trump and continued under Biden.

“If we don’t have access to global markets, and everyone’s turning inward and costs go up, that would be just horrible for the clean energy revolution,” he warned.

Another pressing issue is the potential erosion of expertise within the federal workforce. Victor highlighted Trump’s attacks on civil servants, whom he has criticized as part of a “deep state” obstructing his agenda.

“We are talking about civil servants, many of them scientists,” Victor said. “They are non-partisan and work in the administration from president to president. Many of them will be deeply demoralized, they are going to be wondering whether they have a role in policymaking, whether they’re going to be able to still do their jobs.”

The panel discussion offered a nuanced perspective on the challenges and opportunities of Trump’s second presidency, emphasizing the complex interplay of politics, market forces, and public opinion in shaping the future of climate and energy policy.