COP29 in the Shadow of a New Trump Presidency

By Robert W. Gerber

John Podesta, head of the U.S. delegation at COP 29 (the 29th UN Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), had a difficult task. Just two weeks after Donald Trump was re-elected to the presidency, Podesta had to explain to delegates assembled in Baku whether the United States would still be committed to global efforts to reduce the impact of climate change.

Podesta touted the Biden Administration’s accomplishments toward climate mitigation. He did not mince words in expressing his feelings about the election outcome: “It’s clear that the next Administration will try to take a U-turn and reverse much of this progress.”  “In January, we will inaugurate a President whose relationship to climate change is captured by the words “hoax” and “fossil fuels”.  He has vowed to dismantle our environmental safeguards— and once again withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. This is what he has said, and we should believe him.”  A journalist asked Podesta how the diminished status of the U.S. delegation to COP29 would affect its work, and another journalist asked whether the U.S. election created an opportunity for the PRC to exert leadership on climate.

The new Trump Administration in 2025 will likely end the U.S. government’s contributions to multilateral climate funds like the Global Environmental Facility and Global Climate Fund.  Trump’s team will also likely abandon U.S. global climate targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions. Biden-era emissions rules for industry are also in jeopardy. But here is a reality check: progress on the climate front within the United States will continue. First, the green economy makes good business sense.  Clean tech is a growing business sector, one where the United States is uniquely competitive globally.  Sustainability and decarbonization are generally good for a company’s bottom line, and it is what many investors – and customers - demand. Clean energy is, in many cases, price-competitive with traditional fossil fuels. Global oil and gas companies are major investors in renewable energy and low-emissions technology. Elon Musk, now one of Trump’s top advisors, understands these facts and has previously supported U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Convention. Exxon’s CEO, who spoke at COP29, discouraged the United States from withdrawing from the convention.

Second, diversifying a country’s energy supply – particularly through off-grid and micro-grid renewables – and preparing for the effects of climate change, strengthen energy security and national security. This concept is reflected in the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2021-2027 climate adaptation plan, which includes an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at DoD - the country’s biggest energy user. The DoD strategy is not driven by “woke” policies, but by the realization that clean energy and preparing for the effects of climate change both contribute to national security.

Third, many states and municipalities are firmly committed to reducing emissions and supporting green energy investments. And the Inflation Reduction Act, which spurred enormous investment in clean tech manufacturing and infrastructure, was approved by the U.S. Congress, and cannot be easily waived by an Executive Branch order. Furthermore, its benefits are shared by blue and red districts alike.

A side note: UN Secretary General António Guterres failed to read the room when he delivered remarks at COP29 that doubled down on the notion that wealthy countries owe developing countries money to address the effects of climate chance, calling it a matter of justice. He did not mention that developing countries can make progress toward climate mitigation and resilience by eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, protecting forests and wetlands, adopting modern emissions standards, and addressing investment risk that repels would be clean energy investments. Putting the onus on donors to solve the global climate crisis will only strengthen the Trump Administration’s view that working with the UN runs counter to American interests.