The 2024 US elections disheartened many climate-conscious leaders, businesses, and people worldwide. Yet, while Donald Trump’s re-election raises valid concerns about the future of climate action- as seen at the international climate talks in Baku in November - despair is not an option. This moment calls for the EU to reaffirm its leadership, galvanise partnerships and embrace the opportunities offered by the green transition.
The US has the power to do good - or harm
As an economic and geopolitical power, the US wields significant influence over global climate action. Historically, the largest contributor to climate change, the US is today the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China. It is also well placed to provide innovations and solutions to support the green transition.
Thus, the Trump administration’s actions impact both the US and the world. To prepare for these, the EU must monitor and understand US developments (as laid out in the sections below). It must respond with actions that safeguard its interests and promote sustainable prosperity, security and competitiveness (as summarised in the end).
Déjà vu: The return of old policies
The climate scepticism, attacks on environmental rules and ‘America First’ doctrine of Trump’s recent electoral campaign echo his 2016-20 presidency, during which the US weakened environmental rules and climate action, and withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change. His second term promises more of the same. He is expected to ease drilling restrictions for fossil fuels, dismantle environmental rules, weaken support for renewables and electric vehicles (EVs), and leave the Paris Agreement, again.
Notably, Trump enters office better prepared, with allies like Lee Zeldin, a vocal critic of environmental policies, poised to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many appointees have ties to Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for the president, which bodes ill for the environment and climate.
With a Republican-controlled Congress and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, Trump’s administration has substantial backing to reverse progress. Even before the elections, Congress sought to weaken standards for air quality, and fossil fuel plant and heavy-duty vehicle emissions. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court curtailed the EPA’s ability to regulate and reduce carbon emissions, and weakened Clean Water Act protections for wetlands that are critical carbon sinks. Should Trump get to appoint more climate-sceptic justices, these setbacks could be cemented for decades.
Can the old playbook work in a new world?
While Trump’s rhetoric remains unchanged - and is now bolstered with more institutional power - the US and the rest of the world have evolved since his last term. The security, economic, social and geopolitical reasons for climate action and the green transition are more evident than ever.
Climate-induced disasters are causing billions in damages and fuelling public concern in the US. Many former climate-sceptic politicians have shifted their rhetoric from denying science to debating solutions. Even some fossil fuel executives, like Exxon Mobil’s CEO, urge Trump to create a stable framework for climate action.
Globally, the clean energy transition is accelerating. Businesses embracing sustainability are positioned to become standard-setters and market leaders. The green transition is now central to great power competition, and the winners of tomorrow are those with access to clean energy, critical materials, and green innovation. The EU and China - the world’s leading industrial economies - are already racing ahead, and the new US administration is faced with a choice. It can embrace the transition or sideline itself from this new era of the global economy and cede economic and geopolitical advantages to rivals like China.
Trump’s dilemma: Clean tech versus the fossil fuel economy
Trump’s opposition to climate-focused policies and clean tech, particularly renewables and EVs, comes with political and economic risks. Thus, the choice between clean tech and fossil fuels is not as black-and-white as often perceived.
First, Biden’s climate bills, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), have benefited Republican districts greatly. Thus, while Republican lawmakers may try to delay implementation through budget cuts or hearings, and target specific provisions, such as tax credits for EVs or wind, or methane fees, an outright repeal of these bills seems unlikely.
Second, while many Republicans favour fossil fuels over renewables, considering them vital to economic and energy security, the discussions are missing important elements. They systematically ignore the enormous economic and social cost of fossil fuels. Moreover, opposition to clean tech often stems from fears of dependence on Chinese critical materials and solutions, but overlook how a circular economy and collaboration with partners like the EU could help overcome these challenges.
Third, US clean tech sectors, particularly EVs, solar and battery solutions, are well-positioned to compete globally. Weakening frameworks for their development and deployment would undermine US manufacturing efforts and mean surrendering the growing global market for sustainable solutions without a fight.
Fourth, US politicians have demonstrated the ability to collaborate on the green transition. Past examples and today’s bipartisan consensus, for example, on nuclear energy, show that the reality need not be as polarised as the political rhetoric, should US politicians so choose.
Potential victims of isolationism and protectionism: diplomacy and trade
The Trump administration’s likely withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and global climate negotiations would undermine collective emission reduction efforts, damage US credibility, alienate allies and create a vacuum for China to expand its influence.
Additionally, a bipartisan push for a carbon border tax could complicate matters. Without a carbon pricing system, like the EU’s Emissions Trading System, this would be a protectionist measure, disadvantaging importers.
Moreover, Trump’s proposed tariffs on all imports, including those from the EU, risk disrupting supply chains, increasing the costs of sustainable solutions and thus escalating trade tensions. They would stall the green transition in the US and damage economies on both sides of the Atlantic.
Implications for the EU
The ongoing US debate on global and transatlantic collaboration, energy transition and tools for enhancing US security and competitiveness requires the EU to prepare for different scenarios.
Under Trump, ‘America First’ risks becoming ‘America Alone’. If the US relinquishes its dominant global position, it creates a vacuum for others to fill. In global climate action, the US absence could propel the EU to enhance its leadership and strengthen alliances, including with China and India. US tariffs might encourage deeper trade relations among affected countries.
If the US slows the green transition and abandons its foothold in the clean energy market, this would mean less global competition for European businesses but also fewer opportunities for transatlantic collaboration in sustainable solutions.
Conversely, if the US advances the green transition with stronger protectionist measures, this would complicate transatlantic collaboration and increase transition costs. In this environment, the EU should aim to collaborate where possible and compete where necessary in advancing green innovation and solutions.
The EU’s role: Leading through commitment, communication and collaboration
To navigate these uncertainties, the EU must adopt a multifaceted strategy:
1) Commitment
Reaffirm leadership in global climate action and commitment to the green transition. Regardless of US actions, continue to use tools available to accelerate the transition in the EU and beyond. Speak with one voice about the EU’s unwavering commitment to the European Green Deal, and ensure that deals with the US - including possibly increasing LNG imports - align with its goals. Showcase how sustainability can drive prosperity, security and economic growth and provide a model for others to follow.
2) Communication
Address US misconceptions and broaden the transatlantic discussion:
- Stress the EU’s ambition and progress on reducing fossil fuel dependency. Many US discussions on drilling assume an ever-growing EU market for US gas, while ignoring the EU’s climate goals, declining demand and plans to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
- Urge the US to join forces in countering China’s dominance in critical materials and clean tech, and thus address transatlantic concerns over economic security, competitiveness and China’s growing geopolitical role. This must include developing circular economy initiatives to better utilise existing resources.
- Highlight the EU's search for partners and solutions to advance its green transition, and explore enhancing trade in relevant materials, products and services. Encourage EU-US collaboration in developing global solutions. Showcase how transatlantic collaboration can lead to the best possible deal for the US, with tangible benefits for its security, economy and society.
3) Collaboration
Strengthen partnerships with those committed to climate action, including like-minded US states, cities, organisations, and businesses. Engage with global partners to support their climate goals and address the impacts of the EU’s own climate actions, thus demonstrating commitment to international rules and cooperation as well.
Finding unity in division
As the US grapples with its role in advancing the green transition domestically and globally, the EU must rise to the challenge. It must remind the US and the world of its unwavering commitment to the European Green Deal, demonstrating that sustainability, competitiveness and security can be achieved together. In a world increasingly defined by division, the EU has the interest and the tools to showcase that leadership grounded in cooperation and ambition can still prevail.
Brooke Moore is a Policy Analyst in the Sustainable Prosperity for Europe programme at the EPC.
Annika Hedberg is a Senior Adviser to the EPC and Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council.
The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.