Second term crisis: Donald Trump and the environment’s last chance
As the Republican Party sweeps back into the White House clutching a MAGA banner, we consider what this means for the American and global climate.
A lot of people have a lot to worry about as news filters through from the 2024 US Presidential Election with all the subtlety of an air raid siren. What Donald Trump’s second term in the White House could and likely will mean for Ukraine’s defence of sovereign territory against Moscow’s aggression, the Middle East’s hopes of avoiding all-out regional war, women’s rights and safeguards for minority groups in the States, is truly terrifying. As is the idea of four years of climate denialism and environmental cuts.
In 2021, The New York Times published an analysis of the first Trump administration’s impact on nature. In total, the authors counted 98 complete environmental rollbacks, and a further 14 that were in progress at that time, bringing the total to 112. Some were never completed, but the numbers contradict rather skewed memories of many commentators who this morning were trying to err on the side of optimism with think pieces about how the Make America Great Again leader had previously shown himself to be less about transforming 50 states into fascist strongholds, and more concerned with greed, kleptocracy and personal ego strokes.
In 2021, Hana V. Vizccarra was staff attorney at Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program and had been tracking policy changes under Trump since 2018. She didn’t mince her words when talking about Trump’s approach to environmental reform: ‘this is a very aggressive attempt to rewrite our laws and reinterpret the meaning of environmental protections.’ Chillingly, similar phraseology has been used countless times within the context of the current Republican party and America’s judiciary, human and civil rights protections
Less than four years later and the US is staring down the barrel of a presidential term which could, at its worse, see the completion of what began in 2016. Only this time with far greater efficiency thanks to the legacy changes that took place, often behind mountains of bureaucratic paperwork, first time round. All but the most loyal in the party have essentially been driven out, and positions of power across the legal system now largely lean far right. Thinking about the full extent of what this may mean is overwhelming, and even considering climate alone is enough to keep you awake until 2030.
Having previously described the universal scientific consensus that human activity is triggering an environmental catastrophe as a ‘hoax’ and ‘one of the greatest scams of all time’, there can be no false illusions that the Trump victory unfolding as quickly as this sentence is being written will be disastrous for the natural world. Emphasis on ‘world’ – environmental policies in any single country impact regionally and globally, but this is especially true when a nation is on the scale of the US, and has this much influence and economic might.
So far, we know that Trump plans to completely remove spending on clean energy at a time when the transition has finally found something above first gear and real, tangible signs of a wholesale switch are everywhere. ‘Insane’ incentives, as he puts it, driving Americans into electric cars will also be scrapped, and when you hear the term ‘drill, baby, drill’ in a conversation about a new wave of oil and gas contracts, alarm bells become deafening.
But while these vague policy promises make distressing reading, it’s the context that really ignites fury and despair among anyone with hopes for a liveable planet by the end of this century. The 2020s are the most crucial decade for environmental mitigation, climate adaptation and preparation for what comes next. ‘Change’ is now baked in, as is disaster, with weather systems becoming more unpredictable, natural resources less reliable and scarcer, and our chances of survival for another few thousand years narrower.
But doom is not guaranteed, and there is still time to prevent the absolute worst case scenarios and bring policy in line with targets. For many in environmental and climate sciences, we have around five years to get back on track – a period which will now be defined by Trump’s second term, with the US, much like the UK, already well behind on action needed to meet any of its legally-binding environmental requirements. Worse still, a good proportion of those with their hands on the policy playbook from January will not consider negligence, stagnation and reversal of climate progress to be a failure at all. Instead, it will be reason to celebrate.
None of which is particularly surprising, when we consider the facts. Trump is now the oldest US presidential candidate in history, clawing back power at the age of 78. Without constitutional change, he’ll leave office at 83, almost six years older than the average life expectancy of the average US male. Although it is important not to make sweeping statements, analysis of voters who put him in the White House the first time round shows that his core support comes from white men aged 50 and above, and it strengthens the older they are. So is it any wonder so many of these people seem completely disinterested in the state of our planet 50 into the future?
Probably not. Perhaps, then, the big question today is not why someone votes for Trump, nor why the Democrats seem incapable of stopping a geriatric egomaniac who recently waxed lyrical on eugenics in yet another disturbing example of his worsening oration skills yet strangely hypnotic power over his half of the electorate. Instead, we need to start thinking about why we keep looking for guidance from people unwilling to invest in the future because they’re not going to be part of it.
More on climate change and net zero:
Nature Finance UK looks to unlock billions in restoration funding
Image: Jose M