The forces fighting global warming and battling to strengthen environmental protection must brace for heavy collateral damage as a result of Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election. Judging by Trump’s campaign rhetoric, and by statements from his Republican allies, environmental protection in the US will be gutted in a frenzy of deregulation and inducements for domestic oil, coal and gas producers.
Environmentalists are assessing the potential damage and developing strategies to avoid an onslaught driven by the most extreme anti-sustainability forces that have ever controlled Capitol Hill.
The list of possible victims is long and depressing.
If worse comes to worst, the US will become much less green, while dealing a crippling blow to international cooperation.
At last month’s COP22 climate conference meeting in Marrakesh, attention focused on the various ways a Trump administration might kill the climate agreement reached at COP21 in Paris last December. Death could come by assassination, with Trump tearing up the agreement, or it could come by starvation, with the US refusing to do or pay its share, or it could be tortured to death, with the US asking everyone else to do more.
Surely, there are more options, but we are not compelled to contemplate them. We do not need to — and we should not.
Very little is known about what the Trump administration will actually do.
Some hope reason will prevail at least to some extent, particularly given that markets are now pushing the green transition.
Others fear it will not.
The simple fact is that we do not know what Trump will do, because he does not know, either.
His administration’s environmental policy is not carved in stone — it is written in water, which always seeks the fastest route to the lowest point. How deep the zealots and the coal lobby will be able to make that point depends partly on the barriers built by the rest of us.
That means concentrating on mobilizing the forces that can strengthen the case for the US to remain part of the global move toward environmental sustainability. This will not convince diehards in the new administration, but it might sustain more moderate forces.
So, who is this “we” that must now take action?
Firstly, “we” are US state governments and legislatures, non-governmental organizations, local communities and corporations. All need to galvanize Americans’ support for protecting local environments and contributing to global solutions.
Secondly, “we” are the international community — the almost 200 members of the UN that in 2015 adopted the Sustainable Development Goals and last year’s Paris climate agreement. It is critically important that all UN members, whether big or small, insist that these global agreements still direct the world’s actions, regardless of what Trump does.
It must be abundantly clear to the incoming administration that the combined economic and environmental interest in pursuing the sustainability agenda will continue to push nations and companies alike in that direction. It is helpful that China has already said that it will not forgo the opportunities inherent in the green transition and that it will take the global lead if the US bows out.
China will not be alone.
While many will regret the absence of US leadership, or even steps in the opposite direction by the Trump administration, the US is no longer strong enough to make all the difference.
Other nations will fill the gap and gain the benefits, and they should make that known loud and clear.
Trump’s US can depart the train, which might well happen, but it cannot stop it. The rest of the world will continue to move ahead.
US corporations and capital markets ought to reinforce that message, not as a political statement, but as a warning that a US economy that sacrifices the opportunities implied by the sustainability agenda will be less attractive to investors — and therefore less prosperous.
Last month, 365 major US companies and investors did just that, issuing a public appeal to Trump not to abandon the Paris climate agreement.
If Trump is to deliver more jobs and higher incomes to his voters, one vehicle to do so is to promote the green agenda of energy efficiency and renewable energy.
The fourth component of the “we” who must act are engaged consumers worldwide.
Marching in the streets shouting slogans at elected leaders will not make the difference. Acting to organize consumers locally, nationally, regionally and globally might.
The message needs to be sent not only by individual consumers, but also by organizations with the capacity to encourage and amplify the message: “We will not buy products and services defying the sustainability agenda, and we will give preference to quality products and brands that respect and promote sustainability.”
Whatever form it takes, the message should be direct and transparent, and it should also target US corporations taking advantage of any relaxation of domestic environmental and emission standards.
Most of us did not vote for Trump and we are not obliged to follow his lead. It is the other way around — the more strongly we organize to stay the course and reinforce action to halt global warming and promote sustainability, the more likely it will be that pragmatic members of the new majority can minimize the damage at home and abroad.
Bo Lidegaard is a former editor-in-chief of the Danish daily Politiken.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS