Drill, baby, drill: What Trump could mean for the global climate agenda

US exit from the Paris Agreement leaves a global leadership vacuum, butoffers an opportunity for other countries to step up to the plate.

Vaishnavi Chandrashekhar

Everyone knew it was coming, but it was still a bit of a shock. 2024 had just been declared the hottest year on record, global temperatures had crossed 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time—a danger mark that the Paris Agreement on climate action sought to avoid—and in California, wildfires were raging.

And yet, on his very first day in office, US President Donald Trump moved to burn down his predecessor’s climate agenda. The head of the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse-gas emissions signed a flurry of executive orders to exit the Paris treaty, reduce the country’s renewable energy targets, and increase its oil and gas production. “Drill, baby, drill,” he trumpeted. (We don’t think this is what the head of the World Meteorological Organisation had in mind last week when he said 2025 must be the year of decisive climate action.)

These moves could have a significant impact on the rest of the world, especially on developing countries in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere that face the brunt of climate risk. In India, for instance, most people live in areas at risk of climate-induced disasters, especially extreme heat, and the large numbers of poor and marginalised are especially vulnerable. India estimates it needs $2.5 trillion to meet its emission targets by 2030 and another $673 billion for adaptation. While the country has mostly used domestic funds for climate action, it has urged rich countries to increase financing and technology transfer.

Although Trump pulled similar policy moves when he was last in power, from 2016-2020, their impact was limited because they came later in his term and were more scattered. That’s not the case this time.

Here’s what Trump ordered on Monday: to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, a treaty that commits 200 nations to reduce the emissions from fossil fuels that cause global warming; to stop new offshore wind energy leases and to potentially amend or terminate existing ones; to expand oil and gas exploration in the US; and to eliminate subsidies for electric vehicles. Yet another order looks for a way to undermine the legal basis for most US federal climate policy, calling on the Environment Protection Agency to scrutinise the “endangerment finding”, a guideline that allows government to regular greenhouse gas emissions as an air pollutant.

Taken together, these moves mean that global emissions could rise in the coming years—as they did in 2018 after the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement during Trump’s first term. That’s not only because US emissions would rise—the country already emits 14% of the world’s carbon dioxide—but also because other countries might take their cue from Trump. That already seemed to be happening at the climate talks in Azerbaijan in December, which took place after the US elections. According to Politico, “officials at the talks said Trump’s return had emboldened oil, gas and coal boosters such as Saudi Arabia, Russia and China, weakened trust in U.S. promises, and made it harder for climate-vulnerable nations to hold out for a better deal.”

Vulnerable nations contribute the least to global emissions and now face the propsect of reduced financial support to cope with consequences of those emissions. The previous administration was a major funder of climate action—former President Joe Biden had scaled up international climate finance from $1.5 billion in 2021 to $9.5 billion in 2023—and it’s unclear how much, if any, of that funding will continue under Trump. Last time the US left the Paris Agreement, for instance, its $3 billion funding for the Green Climate Fund was cut, reports Time magazine, “leaving nations primarily in the Global South without critical resources.” The US is also a major voice in multilateral banks, and could use its influence to move away from climate financing.

Two other orders, not directly related to climate, will also affect communities globally. One is Trump’s decision to withdraw from the World Health Organisation; the other is to suspend all foreign aid for 90 days, pending a review of the programs to ensure they are “aligned with American interests”. The US is a top donor to the WHO, contributing about 15% of its budget for critical health programs from emergency aid to tuberculosis. Meanwhile, USAID, the international humanitarian arm of the government, handles some $40 billion in assistance that goes to countries from Ukraine to Uganda, for everything from humanitarian needs to climate resilience. With the US also being the largest food aid donor, says Devex, some food and nutrition advocates are “quaking in their boots”.

Despite this bleak outlook, Trump’s policies may not have as bad an impact as one might imagine. For one, it takes time to scrap laws. Environmental activists are also likely to file legal challenges, further slowing implementation.

Moreover, coalitions of states, cities, and businesses in the US have said they’ll continue to aim for their climate targets. And even Trump’s own constituency may not be fully on board: Restrictions on wind projects or electric vehicles won’t go down well with investors who have put billions in these industries. Many experts believe the renewable transition has too much momentum now, especially with falling solar costs. “The world is undergoing an energy transition that is unstoppable,” said UN climate chief Simon Stiell this week. “Last year alone, over $2 trillion was invested in the transition (to clean energy). And that compares to one trillion in fossil fuel.”

Even US engagement in climate talks—due in November—will likely continue since, The Hindu notes, Trump “is not averse to running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.”

But the US exit from the Paris Agreement does leave a global leadership vacuum—and also offers an opportunity for other countries to step up to the plate. Last time the US pulled out of the climate treaty, countries like the European Union, China, India, and Brazil become more active. Germany helped the WHO with extra funding; China has increased climate finance to developing countries. In Davos this week, the European Union’s top executive, Ursula van der Leyen, said the Paris Agreement is still the best hope for humanity. “[E]urope will stay the course, and keep working with all nations that want to protect nature and stop global warming,” she said.

Still, the world is in a different place today than it was five years ago. Europe faces its own political turmoil, with many of its countries also turning right-ward in response to energy, economic, and immigration crises at home. Europe, too, has been slashing foreign aid in recent years.

A more radical path is proposed by Vijaya Ramachandran and Ted Nordhaus, directors of the Breakthrough Institute. In a provocative piece in Foreign Policy, they argue the US pullout offers lower-income countries a chance to “abandon a process that has clearly not served them and, indeed, has often justified their continuing impoverishment.” After all, the climate talks have not brought poor countries the financial or technological aid they need to adapt to climate change or expand renewable energy. (The recent COP in Baku wrested funding commitments of $300 billion, laughably short of the trillion-dollar requirement.) For developing countries, they insist, “asserting their own agency is by far the best path to alleviating poverty, generating economic growth, and building society-wide resilience to a warming climate.” A world that is not dependent on US agendas is something to think about.

EXPERTSPEAK

“Will state-level and corporate action in the US double down on investments and innovation in clean tech? And how will other large historical emitters step up to fill the emissions reduction gap?” he asked while expressing those uncertainties. Meanwhile, India must remain steadfast in its commitment to climate action — to capitalise on the strategic opportunities in technology, investment, industrial development, green livelihoods, and greater resilience for the economy”

Arunabha Ghosh, CEO of the New Delhi-based Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), quoted in The Times of India

“What Trump has done is a complete denial of the emergency of climate change. It’s not just an executive order to withdraw from Paris Agreement, it’s a reversal of all decisions that were taken to tackle climate change. It will be key to observe how Europe and rest of rich world behaves”
Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment. quoted in Hindustan Time

“Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is more than a moral failure — it is a direct threat to global solidarity, multilateral cooperation, and the fight for climate justice…
This reckless move sends a dangerous signal to developing nations like India, which are demonstrating remarkable leadership with ambitious climate plans despite facing immense challenges. India’s progress relies on fair and robust financial support — support that Trump’s actions have callously undermined,” Harjeet Singh, Climate Activist and Founding Director of Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, quoted in the Hindustan Times

“The U.S. pulling out of the Paris Agreement isn’t ideal, but past experience shows minimal disruption. Renewable growth in the U.S. is now driven by economics, ensuring continued progress. For India, the impact is negligible as we have a strong domestic market and are indigenizing supply chains. With the government’s 500 GW target, India’s clean energy transition remains on track.” Sumant Sinha CEO of Renew quoted in Moneycontrol

Compiled by The Migration Story

Earth Shifts, a monthly column on The Migration Story, will analyse the impact of global green goals amid mounting climate uncertainties on lives and livelihoods

Vaishnavi Chandrashekhar is an environment and science journalist based in Mumbai