Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025 has opened up a world of uncertainty when it comes to climate change and climate policy. What is already clear is that this new administration will bring with it a significant shift in policy and approach that will have effects far outside US borders. At our most recent Climate Conversation: Climate Policy and the new US Administration, hosted on January 21, faculty experts Assistant Professor Holly Caggiano (SCARP), Professor Simon Donner (Geography, IRES, IOF), and Professor Kathryn Harrison (Political Science) shared their insights on announcements made on inauguration day by the new Trump administration, reflected on the first Trump presidency, and led a discussion on how to move forward in changing times.
The event started out with discussion on the news that the United States would, as promised, be again pulling out of the Paris Agreement through the Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements Executive Order (note - you can read the text of these executive orders in full on the White House website). Simon Donner noted that this move may be more symbolic than obstructionist; as the Trump administration would be able to further block action if they remained in negotiations, including refusing to agree to more ambitious plans. However, the loss of a major emitter in the Paris Agreement does impact its potential effectiveness and may encourage other countries to consider their position.
A significant cause for concern identified by all of the panelists, is the ending of financial support for developing countries’ climate mitigation and adaptation; the text of the Executive Order specifically indicates that says the US "[s]hall immediately cease or revoke any purported financial commitment made by the United States under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." Not only will this hinder the movement of the billions that the US has previously pledged to address climate change, but the speakers noted that this lack of US presence could encourage other countries to drop commitments as well.
In other executive orders, Trump has declared a “National Energy Emergency” and has blocked federal permitting for onshore and offshore wind power projects. Holly Caggiano pointed out that this framing of an ‘Energy Emergency’ does not reflect what is occurring in the US energy sector, as the country has been seeing record high oil and gas profits in recent years. Nevertheless, Trump has promised an increase in oil and gas production and consumption, which led to a discussion of whether industry and investors will be drawn to develop more oil and gas infrastructure, or focus on alternative energy production.
Trump has made investing in wind power more challenging, by blocking federal permitting for onshore and offshore wind power projects. The permitting process for onshore wind projects are complex, with different jurisdictions having control under specific circumstances; it remains to be seen what impact this will have on the onshore wind power industry. Any projects on federal land will be blocked, but it is unclear whether the federal government will issue approvals for permits related to federal environmental protection, or endangered species protection, under this new directive. The impact on offshore wind developments is more clear; these projects are fully suspended because this part of the ocean is under federal control. For more information see the article Trump Orders End to All Wind Energy Permits. Nevertheless, Trump has promised an increase in oil and gas production and consumption, which has led some to wonder- do companies themselves want to build more gas plants?
Similar uncertainty was discussed over how auto companies may react to the direction of the new administration towards EV production. Trump has declared he will end the federal “EV mandate” that does not actually exist. His executive order ends a non-binding goal set by the Biden Administration to have half of new cars sold by 2030 be EVs. It also targets a California waiver under the Clean Air Act which states that California can phase out the sale of gasoline powered vehicles by 2035, an act which many other states have adopted. During the last Trump administration, California negotiated with members of the auto industry to continue with emission reduction and EV goals despite Trump reversing their waiver, and it is possible that something similar will happen again. Despite the position of the Trump administration, auto manufacturers have invested significantly in the production and distribution of EVs. Since EV production is likely to continue to expand, it is still possible for Canada to maintain or establish new EV mandates, although there will be political headwinds.
A larger impact on Canada’s auto industry would be felt by Trump’s proposed 25% tariff on Canadian goods. While Trump stopped short of putting these tariffs in place on day one, he indicated that he could enact them on February 1st. These tariffs would increase prices for Canadians and Americans, and especially in ‘middle America’ and could cause significant pushback. Given Trump’s support in this region, and from industries that could be harmed by these tariffs, it is unclear if Trump will follow through with the 25% tariff.
The speakers noted that a US retreat from stronger climate action could induce a relaxation of industrial standards in Canada. For example, industries may argue against environmental restrictions saying that with them they won’t be able to compete with US counterparts with no such restrictions. Politically, we are already seeing a rise in conservative prominence in BC, and speakers speculated that our provincial government could be walking back on climate ambition for fear that voters won’t support it or won’t be willing to pay for it.
Given these changes, how can we move forward? A core theme was an emphasis on decisions within our control, as well as actions at other levels, from local communities to municipal and state/provincial governments. Given that forces much greater than us are causing this change, it can be more effective to focus on things in our control, such as where significant individual investments (like pension funds) are held, and to be vocal to local governments about what is important to us. The speakers emphasized that while it is important to recognize the reality of our current situation, ‘Climate Doomerism’ will not help us protect each other from the impacts of climate change. Kathryn Harrison emphasized that identifying goals and values, and caring for each other, is vital as we go forward.
To learn more about similar issues in a Canadian Context, come to our next Climate Conversation: The ‘Climate’ of Political Polarization and Misinformation in Canadian Politics. Thank you to everyone who came and shared their questions, sentiments and expertise, and to Professor Simon Donner, Professor Kathryn Harrison and Assistant Professor Holly Caggiano for leading this discussion.
This summary has been prepared by Sidonie Wittman and edited by the CSRC team based on discussion at our Climate Conversation.