U.S. President-elect Donald Trump .
| Photo Credit: Reuters

With the Republicans firmly in control of the U.S. government, a seismic shift in American climate policy is imminent, threatening to unravel years of slow but hard-earned progress in addressing the climate crisis.

With president-elect Donald Trump referring to climate change as a “hoax”, the most devastating effect will be a diplomatic retreat in global negotiations, along with a possible withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (PA). U.S. climate negotiators will likely explain inaction with references to “domestic political constraints”, which American environmental advocates, frustrated by limited options, may also use as a shield while exhorting other major economies in the global South to take up the slack.

Also Read | How much can US president-elect Donald Trump derail global climate action?

An alarming project proposal

Project 2025, developed by The Heritage Foundation, brings together the vision of many conservative interests and is expected to be unleashed from the start of Mr. Trump’s presidency, even though he distanced himself from it during his campaign. It envisions a reduction in federal climate science programmes across several departments. The installation of politically appointed “science advisers” at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signals a concerning shift away from independent scientific oversight. This accompanies the potential dismantling of the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which forms the legal backbone of climate regulation by identifying greenhouse gases (GHGs) as public health threats. This implies that GHG emissions may no longer be included in future environmental legislation. The plan also calls for ending green subsidies and opposing “climate reparations” to developing nations, effectively abandoning any pretence of climate justice.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of the Biden administration, the most ambitious U.S. climate legislation to date, is especially targeted by Project 2025, but it may oddly survive due to its widespread economic benefits, particularly in Republican districts that have seen substantial clean energy investments and job creation. Fossil fuel companies anticipate expanded operational freedom — a stance not unique to one party, as evidenced by previous bipartisan equivocation on fracking. Scientific institutions that work on climate change could face severe cuts in federal funding. In particular, research into renewable energy and battery storage faces significant reduction, handicapping the ability to compete in the growing global clean energy economy.

These changes come when climate-driven disasters demand a coordinated, robust response. Indeed, it is mystifying how climate disinformation and misinformation can thrive in an era of intensifying climate-induced disasters, as witnessed in South America with hurricanes Helene and Ida. As this false messaging deepens under Mr. Trump, the public will be more disconnected from the scientific realities of climate change. The proposed dismantling of climate science infrastructure is more than just a policy reversal; it is a retreat from reality itself, one that future generations will judge harshly.

EDITORIAL | ​Testing time: On climate action and President Trump

Unfortunately, climate change will not pause for political convenience. While policy may shift with elections, the physics of GHG emissions is consistent. Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), we are significantly off track from meeting both NDC commitments and PA temperature goals. Current NDCs would lead to global emissions of 51.5 Gt of CO2 equivalent by 2030, a level only 2.6% lower than in 2019. This falls far short of the about 43% reduction needed for the 1.5°C target and 27% for the 2°C target.

Even with full implementation of all NDCs, we are heading towards temperature increases of up to 2.8°C of warming. The current trajectory would consume 86% of the remaining carbon budget by 2030 for the desirable target of 1.5°C. The report emphasises an urgent need for increased NDC ambition, substantial over-achievement of current NDCs, or both. Without enhanced action, the required post-2030 emission reductions would need to be dramatically steeper to compensate for this slow start.

The 29th global meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) is going on in Azerbaijan. The lame-duck Biden administration will be reluctant to make major commitments on finance. As was the case under previous Republican administrations, one can expect American delegates at COP29 to blame their political leaders for their inaction, while aware that the U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of GHGs generated by humanity.

Also Read | Climate experts worry about Donald Trump’s re-election impact

Rays of hope

Still, there may be reasons for cautious hope. Globally, the clean energy transition has gained considerable momentum, driven by market forces. Even Republican-led States in the U.S. have embraced renewable energy investments, recognising the economic opportunities they bring to their communities. The likely survival of the IRA demonstrates how clean energy’s economic benefits can create durable political constituencies. U.S. negotiators at the climate conference will tell us that States, cities, and businesses increasingly view climate action as essential to their long-term prosperity. While there is room for domestic action within the U.S., we must be clear-eyed. The U.S. will not support global climate finance or take responsibility for being the largest cumulative emitter of GHGs. Climate justice will seriously get stalled at a moment when the world can least afford delay. The challenge lies in preserving and building upon existing progress, while finding new paths in an increasingly hostile international political environment.

Sujatha Byravan is a scientist based in Chennai; Sudhir Chella Rajan is a professor at IIT Madras. Views are personal

As greenhouse gas concentrations hit a new high in 2023, the earth will continue to warm for many years to come, according to a report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is increasing more quickly than at any other point in human history, increasing by almost 10% in just 20 years.

According to WMO’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, large vegetation fire CO2 emissions and a possible reduction in carbon absorption by forests combined with stubbornly high fossil fuel CO2 emissions from human and industrial activities to drive the increase.

Echoing the UN chief’s longstanding appeals, WMO Deputy Secretary-General Ko Barrett told journalists that carbon dioxide (CO2) – one of the three main greenhouse gases, along with methane and nitrous oxide – is now accumulating in the atmosphere “faster than at any time experienced during human existence”. Because of the extremely long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, “we are committed to rising temperatures for many, many years to come,” she added.

WMO’s 2024 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin offers a stark, scientific reminder that rising CO2 levels need to be slowed. In 2004, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 377.1 parts per million (ppm), while in 2023, this reached 420 ppm, according to WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch Network.

“This is an increase of 42.9 parts per million, or 11.4 per cent in just 20 years,” Ms Barrett explained.

“These are more than statistics,” the WMO deputy chief insisted. “Every part per million matters, every fraction of a degree of temperature increase matters; it matters in terms of the speed of glacier and ice retreat, the acceleration of sea level rise, ocean heat and acidification. It matters in terms of the number of people who will be exposed to extreme heat every year, the extinction of species, the impact on our ecosystems and economies.”

Representational image of cargo ships at a harbour. Carbon tax on shipping will cut developing countries’ GDP by 0.13%
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The European Union, Canada, Japan and climate-vulnerable Pacific Island states are among 47 countries rallying support for a charge on the international shipping sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, documents reviewed by Reuters showed.

The documents, being discussed at an International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting now entering a second week, outline four proposals with a combined 47 backers for imposing a fee on each tonne of greenhouse gas the industry produces.

ALSO READ | Understanding the EU’s carbon border tax 

Support for the idea has more than doubled from the 20 nations that publicly supported a carbon levy at a French climate finance summit last year.

Backers argue the policy could raise more than $80 billion a year in funding which could be reinvested to develop low-carbon shipping fuels and support poorer countries to transition. Opponents, including China and Brazil, say it would penalise trade-reliant emerging economies.

Those countries are competing to win over the dozens of others—including most African nations—that diplomats say have yet to take a firm stance on the issue. The IMO takes decisions by consensus, but can also do so by majority support.

The U.N. agency last year agreed to target a 20% emissions cut by 2030, and net zero emissions around 2050. While countries agreed in talks last week to continue negotiations on the emissions price, an official meeting summary noted they were “split on several issues” regarding the idea.

Albon Ishoda, IMO delegate for the low-lying Marshall Islands, said a levy was the only credible route to meet the IMO’s goals.

“If this does not get passed, what are the alternatives? Because we’ve already agreed to certain targets,” he said. “Are we going back to the drawing board?”

Shipping, which transports around 90% of world trade, accounts for nearly 3% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions—a share expected to expand in the coming decades without tougher anti-pollution measures.

A proposal tabled by the Marshall Islands, Vanuatu and others—which despite their high reliance on shipping have demanded an emissions levy for years—proposes a charge of $150 per tonne of CO2.

Researchers have said a $150 carbon price could make investments in low-carbon ammonia-fuelled systems economic compared with conventional ships.

Disagreement

China, Brazil and Argentina pushed back on the idea of a CO2 levy in IMO talks last year. A study by Brazil’s University of Sao Paulo found a carbon tax on shipping would cut GDP across developing countries by 0.13%, with Africa and South America among the hardest-hit regions.

A Brazilian negotiator said Brazil and other developing countries were seeking a swift energy transition with the least disruptive effects on their economies, especially for countries that rely on sea-borne trade.

A proposal by Argentina, Brazil, China, and others advocates a global fuel emissions intensity limit, with a financial penalty for breaches, as an alternative. That would mean if countries fully complied with the fuel standard, no emissions would face the fee.

“We will not be in favour of a flat levy likely to hurt developing countries, but we would be in favour of a good levy only applied to the emissions over a certain benchmark,” the Brazilian negotiator said.

Despite differences of opinion, member states are still attempting to agree on global measures to avoid more countries targeting the industry on a national level.

That would fragment the market with varying local standards, and cause a headache for companies shipping goods globally.