The upcoming COP29 climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, is scheduled just six days after the U.S. presidential election. Organizers are anxious about how the election results could influence global efforts to combat climate change.
The uncertainty reflects concerns over potential shifts in U.S. climate policy, with past experiences under previous administrations impacting current planning discussions.
Even though the tightly contested U.S. presidential election is still five months away, the influence of former President Trump is already affecting global efforts to address the climate crisis.
This impact extends to congressional actions on global warming and goals set by the clean-energy industry for the years ahead, highlighting the ongoing significance of U.S. climate policy in shaping international and domestic environmental agendas.
As former President Trump maintains a strong position in the polls against President Biden, he has become increasingly vocal about his plans to increase oil and gas production. He remains skeptical about climate change and resistant to incentives aimed at promoting renewable energy.
This marks a notable departure from the 2016 election, during which climate issues received little attention, and Trump’s policy proposals in this area were generally unclear.
Trump is now explicitly targeting President Biden’s climate initiatives, including significant legislative acts like the Inflation Reduction Act, and regulations aimed at reducing emissions from power plants and vehicles.
These plans are detailed in Project 2025, a blueprint created by conservative groups for a potential second Trump administration. The blueprint proposes actions such as expanding oil and gas leasing on public lands, potentially including controversial projects like Alaska’s Willow oil drilling.
It also suggests directing regulatory bodies to prioritize oil and gas interests over climate considerations, eliminating clean-energy programs at the Department of Energy, reducing the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency, and discontinuing the National Climate Assessment.
These proposals underscore a stark contrast to Biden’s current climate agenda and signal potential reversals in U.S. environmental policy if Trump were to return to office.
The $22 million initiative led by the Heritage Foundation is explicitly focused on expanding fossil fuel resources, dismissing the emphasis on addressing the climate crisis and scaling back green subsidies.
This approach has raised concerns among scientists, including Rachel Cleetus, the policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who find the project alarming due to its potential environmental impacts and its divergence from efforts to mitigate climate change.
“Given the dire needs of the climate crisis, we need to accelerate the momentum of our transition to clean energy,” she told.
“What [Project 2025] would do is slow down and delay that transition, undercut the ability to bring down emissions, which is very harmful for the climate and causes a lot of pollution in communities near these facilities.”
Karoline Leavitt, the national spokesperson for the Trump campaign, has denied any official connection between Project 2025 and the campaign.
She emphasized that unless a message originates directly from President Trump or an authorized member of his campaign team, no aspects of future presidential staffing or policy announcements should be considered official.
This clarification seeks to delineate between campaign rhetoric and external initiatives, suggesting that Project 2025 operates independently of Trump’s formal campaign strategy.
The fossil fuel industry has been preparing executive orders aimed at significantly increasing oil and gas production.
These efforts, characterized by their assertiveness, have raised concerns among environmentalists.
Recently, Trump reportedly made promises at a fundraising dinner with oil and gas executives, suggesting he would dismantle Biden’s policies on electric vehicles and wind energy in exchange for campaign contributions totaling $1 billion.
These developments have alarmed environmental activists, highlighting ongoing tensions over U.S. energy and climate policies.
Leavitt responded to concerns about Trump’s climate agenda with a statement:
“Crooked Joe Biden is controlled by environmental extremists who are trying to implement the most radical energy agenda in history and force Americans to purchase electric vehicles they can’t afford.
Biden’s $700 billion dollar so-called ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ contributed to the worst inflation crisis in generations and caused prices to increase 20 percent higher than they were under President Trump.
President Trump will cancel Joe Biden’s radical mandates, terminate the Green New Scam, cut costs to reduce inflation, and get our economy booming again.”
