Trump's Election and Its Environmental Implications: Should We Be Worried?

The Alarm Bells Ring in Singapore

In a recent panel discussion at AlterCOP in Singapore, climate expert Ben Horton voiced stark concerns about the future of U.S. climate policy after Donald Trump got re-elected. Horton, known for his work on sea-level rise and climate impacts, did not mince words, describing the likely effects as "horrific" for both national and global climate action. Despite polls showing that nearly 70% of Americans favour increased climate action, Horton noted that climate change had not played a prominent role in the election discourse, leaving the door open for a significant policy reversal if Trump takes office.

Global Stakes in the Balance

The implications of such a reversal could be far-reaching. According to "Project 2025," a conservative policy blueprint, the second Trump administration might again withdraw from the Paris Agreement and end U.S. participation in global climate financing. This withdrawal would impact not only domestic carbon emissions but also international efforts to fund climate adaptation in developing countries. Without U.S. leadership, global climate cooperation would likely suffer, hampering financial transfers intended to help vulnerable nations adapt to worsening environmental conditions.

The stakes are particularly high given current climate trajectories. The Biden administration's goal of reducing U.S. emissions by 40% is seen as essential for avoiding severe global warming. Carbon Tracker estimates that a Trump-led rollback could add at least 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide over a four-year period, increasing the odds of surpassing the critical 1.5°C global temperature threshold. This threshold marks a tipping point beyond which a majority of scientists anticipate drastic environmental changes: potential mass coral reef extinctions, destabilisation of major ice sheets, release of methane from Arctic permafrost, disruptions to ocean circulation, and possibly even the transformation of the Amazon rainforest into a savanna-like ecosystem. (Horton’s words).

Trump's Environmental Legacy and Future Prospects

Trump's previous term provides clear indicators of what his approach might entail. During those four years, his administration dismantled nearly 100 environmental regulations, withdrew from the Paris Agreement, and emphasised fossil fuel expansion under a "drill, baby, drill" strategy. This track record suggests that his campaign rhetoric was not just political posturing but rather a consistent approach to environmental policy.

The appointment of former congressman Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) further reinforces these concerns. While Zeldin is less openly skeptical of climate change than Trump, his legislative record shows consistent votes against key environmental protection measures. His alignment with pro-business, limited-regulation policies suggests he would likely support a similar deregulatory approach, prioritising economic growth over environmental concerns.

The Evolution of Environmental Politics: From Unity to Division

Environmental issues were not always politically divisive. In fact, throughout much of the 20th century, environmentalism enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Conservation efforts in the U.S. were championed by figures from across the political spectrum, including Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who promoted the creation of national parks and wildlife refuges. The goal was straightforward: preserve nature and ensure clean air and water for future generations. Legislation like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act received bipartisan support because they were viewed as public health and quality-of-life measures rather than ideological initiatives.

The Great Divide: Competing Economic Visions

At the heart of today's environmental debate lies a fundamental disagreement about the role of capitalism and profit in addressing climate change. The political left often views unfettered capitalism as the root cause of environmental degradation, arguing that the pursuit of profit has led to resource depletion, pollution, and climate change. This perspective has given rise to calls for radical economic transformation, with some activists and theorists suggesting that addressing climate change requires moving beyond traditional capitalist structures.

The right, however, sees profit-driven innovation and market forces as essential tools for environmental progress. Conservative thinkers argue that sustainable solutions must be economically viable to succeed long-term—after all, what isn't profitable isn't sustainable. They point to examples like Tesla's transformation of the electric vehicle market or the dramatic cost reductions in solar energy as evidence that market-driven innovation, not government intervention, offers the most effective path to environmental protection.

This philosophical divide has practical implications. While progressives often advocate for strict regulations and government-led initiatives, conservatives favour market-based solutions that harness private sector innovation. The emergence of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria has become a flashpoint in this debate, with progressives viewing it as essential for corporate responsibility while conservatives often see it as an attempt to impose anti-capitalist values on businesses.

The Social Justice Dimension

The overlap between environmental activism and broader social justice movements has further complicated the political landscape. Terms like "climate justice" and "environmental racism" highlight the ways climate change and pollution disproportionately impact marginalized communities. While this framing has mobilised younger, progressive audiences, it has also alienated potential allies who support environmental goals but disagree with certain social policies.

Finding Common Ground: The Path Forward

Yet, amid this polarization, there are signs that bipartisan progress on environmental issues remains possible. The recent Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed with support from both parties, includes significant provisions for clean energy infrastructure, electric vehicle charging stations, and grid resilience. These measures demonstrate how environmental action can be woven into broader, economically beneficial initiatives that attract cross-party support.

Moving forward, several strategies could help bridge the political divide on environmental issues. Market-based solutions, such as cap-and-trade systems or tax credits for clean energy, often appeal to conservative values while advancing environmental goals. Public-private partnerships have shown promise in developing innovative solutions that generate both private profits and public benefits. Additionally, focusing on local economic benefits—such as job creation in renewable energy sectors or cost savings from energy efficiency—can help build support across political lines.

Navigating the Challenges Ahead

At the AlterCOP in Singapore some speakers have outlined that America is "not the only country that controls the world climate”, suggesting a growing recognition that global climate action need not be wholly dependent on U.S. leadership.

Speakers emphasised that regional and local initiatives could help fill the void. The anticipated shift toward "private regulation," where companies set their own environmental standards, might even accelerate the adoption of climate-friendly practices in some sectors, regardless of federal policy.

As a small nation that has shown remarkable leadership in sustainable urban development and green finance, Singapore exemplifies how regional actors can drive climate innovation regardless of U.S. policy shifts. The Matcha Initiative's work in convening AlterCOP demonstrates the rising importance of Asia-Pacific leadership in global climate discourse.

The path forward requires not only a delicate balance between environmental protection and economic growth but also a recognition that climate leadership can emerge from multiple sources. Moreover, ultimately it’s up to each person, each employee, each company to do the right thing.