Climate change experts see dark clouds ahead

Climate experts expect a second Trump administration to feature multipronged attacks on recent years’ climate change progress, with battles in the courts, in Congress, and involving the enormous administrative power vested in the presidency.

Supporters of efforts to reduce planet-warming fossil-fuel emissions should begin to focus on working to keep gains already made and prepare for a slowdown in progress, according to a panel of specialists gathered at a Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability discussion Nov. 26 on likely changes ahead as a new administration prepares to take over.

President-elect Donald Trump has said he plans to ramp up oil and gas production, roll back the Inflation Reduction Act, end Biden administration regulations aimed at cutting carbon emissions and moving the nation away from fossil fuels, and withdraw once again from the Paris Agreement on climate change.

There may, however, also be some bright spots ahead, the experts said, stemming from some states continuing to push for carbon-free energy, the economic momentum behind ever-cheaper clean technology, and from the desire by American businesses to profit from the sale of green products and technology to the world.

“There’s a lot of interest in what lies ahead with the new administration and Congress,” said James Stock, vice provost for climate and sustainability and director of the Salata Institute. “This is pretty complicated, and it’s multifaceted.”

The second Trump administration, with a pro-business bent and taste for deregulation, will bear hallmarks of the first, but with control of the White House, Congress, and a friendly majority on the Supreme Court, the action likely will be more aggressive, said several panelists.

One prime target for the new administration will be 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act, perhaps the nation’s most ambitious efforts ever to fight climate change. That legislation includes billions of dollars in tax credits, subsidies, and other financial incentives that aim to make carbon-free energy more attractive.

Although some 80 percent of the funding authorized by the legislation has been spent or is under contract, the Biden administration is pushing to get as much money out the door as possible before Inauguration Day, according to Jody Freeman, the Archibald Cox Professor of Law and faculty director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program.

That might not be enough, she said, as, with control of Congress as well as the White House, there may be attempts to “claw back” money already awarded and to revise or repeal the law. Among the most endangered targets is the $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicle purchases, she said.

The administration can do quite a lot without having to go through Congress or the courts, Freeman said. At the president’s direction, government agencies tasked with administering climate-related legislation can ease rules or change direction via the governmental regulatory process.

They can alter the government’s position in lawsuits and begin new suits against those pursuing climate-friendly action, as occurred in the first Trump administration, which encouraged an antitrust lawsuit against four automakers that were negotiating with California on auto emissions standards. Similar suits can be pursued against states that challenge federal initiatives, against environmental nonprofits, and against business groups that cooperate to help create a level playing field for competition.

Freeman said these efforts don’t even have to be successful to damage U.S. climate efforts. A widespread “chilling effect” will stem from the attacks themselves, regardless of merit, that may prompt people and organizations to be less aggressive in their activities, or to choose not to fight back.

“This version of the Trump administration, Trump 2.0, is not just prepared to roll back federal regulations, but to target the states and the private sector actors that actually want to replace the gap left by the federal government,” Freeman said. “If that happens to come to fruition, I think that is much more dangerous and much more far-reaching, even if it’s ultimately unsuccessful. All that litigation will help to chill activity, will help to scare people off, and intimidate action, and will also grind it to a halt by tying it up in litigation.”

The hourlong virtual event, “What Does Trump 2.0 Mean for Climate Change,” was moderated by Stock and included Freeman; Robert Stavins, the A.J. Meyer Professor of Energy and Economic Development at the Harvard Kennedy School and head of the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements; and Peter Tufano, Baker Foundation Professor at Harvard Business School.

Stavins, who had recently returned from the annual international climate talks, held this year in Baku, Azerbaijan, said Trump’s re-election loomed over the talks and was a regular topic of conversation among the delegates and other attendees. If Trump again moves to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, the timeframe for withdrawal would mean that the nation would no longer be part of the global talks by early 2026.

Other countries, including the U.K., the European Union, and China, indicated they would step up efforts at global leadership in the absence of the U.S.

Beyond withdrawing from the Paris accord, Stavins said that some in Trump’s orbit want the U.S. to withdraw from the underlying treaty that establishes the international framework to collectively address climate change, the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in 1992.

Internationally, Stavins said, there is also concern that Trump’s stance may embolden other nations to follow suit.

The churning and uncertainty around the issue are what will be most damaging to the business community, Tufano said. Businesses generally look for opportunities to make a profit, which can occur in the climate space — though profitability will decline if IRA incentives are lost — but stability is key. In the absence of stability, Tufano said, business leaders often will wait to make decisions until the situation stabilizes.

“Businesses react negatively to volatility and uncertainty,” Tufano said. “The amount of jawboning and social media pressure and other kinds of pressure that can be put on firms cannot be underestimated.”

While some industries may be content to slow activities with respect to climate change until the business environment shifts again, some industries can’t afford to, Tufano said. Insurers are already on the front lines of the climate crisis and will still have to respond to climate-related weather disasters regardless of whether their connection to a shifting climate is in political vogue.

Similarly, the low price of installed wind power has made windy states such as Iowa and Texas prime locations for wind farms, a trend unlikely to be reversed. The fight to contain emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane may also be past the tipping point where political opposition can stall efforts to curb emissions.

The recent launch of methane-sniffing satellites that share their data publicly provides a roadmap for natural gas companies to target leaks, a relatively straightforward task once the leaks are found, Stavins said. The fact that they can then sell gas that otherwise would leak into the atmosphere provides a powerful incentive to lower methane leaks, helping both their bottom line and climate efforts, Stavins said.

“We’re likely to see a lot more action in the oil and gas sector in the United States, but in other countries as well because it’s become newly profitable to fix those leaks,” Stavins said, “a point of optimism.”