Jason P. Dinh

Let’s start by talking about what was at stake in this election. This is the last full presidential term before 2030, when the world and the country have set goals to halve greenhouse gas emissions compared to the early 21st century. How important was this election for meeting those goals?

Rachel Cleetus

The election of this incoming administration—a deeply anti-science administration that does not even acknowledge the reality of climate change and that has threatened to roll back climate policies—is a sobering moment. One could say it’s the nail in the coffin in terms of meeting the U.S. 2030 goals. But I want to be clear that we went into this election already in a position of deeply inadequate action over decades from policymakers. We’ve continued to see fossil fuels expand. We are seeing a real acceleration of the climate crisis and its impacts on people around the world. The fossil fuel industry has been engaged in decades of deception and misinformation. This is what got us here.

The UNEP Emissions Gap Report that came out last month pointed out how far off track the world is right now. It found that current Nationally Determined Contributions from the Paris Agreement have us on track for something like 2.6 to 3.1 degrees Celsius of temperature increase. 

I want to acknowledge that this is a very sobering moment because these next four years, as you say, will take us to the end of this decade and see that 2030 goal potentially slip out of grasp. But the fact that we were on our back foot already? That is on decades of inaction and fossil fuel industry malfeasance.

Jason

I think it was surprising for people to learn in the UNEP Emissions Gap Report that, despite major climate legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, we aren’t on track to meet our Paris Agreement goals—and that we even need substantially more ambitious goals if we want to stay below 1.5 or 2 degrees of heating. Even though those domestic climate policies are insufficient, are they safe, or do you expect that they’ll be dismantled by this incoming administration?

Rachel

The incoming administration during its campaign has definitely threatened to roll back the Inflation Reduction Act. But the reality is that the clean energy provisions of that law are very popular. They’re delivering tremendous benefits, including in red states. They have a lot of support across the political spectrum from businesses and workers who are being employed in the burgeoning domestic supply chain and manufacturing base that’s being created. So it remains to be seen whether these clean energy provisions will actually be rolled back because they are so popular. 

Nevertheless, as you were saying, even the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the CHIPS Act, etc., were not enough to get us to our 2030 goals. Building on that was going to be crucial, including through things like power plant carbon standards and industry transportation. But the incoming administration is threatening rollbacks to legislative policies as well as these health-based standards.

Jason

COP29 starts next week, and, we’ve mentioned this a few times, but one of the big talking points is going to be the updated NDCs, or Nationally Determined Contributions, which are national climate action plans created in accordance with the Paris Agreement. Nations have to submit new NDCs by early next year. But does that matter with Trump in charge? He pulled out of the Paris Agreement during his first term. Do you think he’s going to do the same this time, and if he does, what is at stake?

Rachel

He likely will. He has threatened to do so and has done so in the past. Shamefully, the U.S. is the only country that has ever exited the Paris Agreement, and now it looks on track for that to happen again. 

The top priority in the lead-up to this year’s COP is climate finance. This was the moment that rich nations were supposed to provide a new financial goal to help lower-income countries make a clean energy transition and adapt to climate change. The reality is lower income countries just won’t be able to transition to clean energy fast enough if the finance is not there and they’re already reeling from the cost of extreme climate disasters. This is only fair for richer nations like the U.S., which is the largest contributor to heat-trapping emissions on a historical basis. The U.S. really needs to make sure that it doesn’t stand in the way of global progress regardless of our election outcome. These are collective goals, and we should not hold the world hostage to the particular brand of politics that is at play here. 

It’s also important for the U.S. to put forward a bold NDC. The next round of NDCs goes until 2035. That’s beyond the timeframe of this next incoming administration. It needs to be out there as the goal that the U.S. sees its fair share contribution to help drive ambition from other countries, including China, EU nations, and other major emitters. We need everybody to step up, and if the U.S. abandons the space, it’s very hard to drive that ambition globally.

Jason

The current administration has an opportunity to make those financial commitments and those NDC commitments before passing the reins over to Trump, right?

Rachel

Exactly. We are going into COP with the Biden administration, and they should negotiate in good faith to move forward ambition globally. The world should not have to wait for the U.S. to get its act together. That said, obviously there will be a lot of questions about credibility and trust for the U.S. because the world has seen us exit the Paris Agreement before. Other nations understand that the incoming administration has taken a real wrecking ball approach to global diplomacy, not just climate diplomacy, but diplomacy in general. There is a lot of concern, but the U.S. is such a big player on the global stage that what we choose to do and not do has major repercussions for the level of ambition all around. 

Jason

We’ve seen a lot of coverage this election cycle of Project 2025 and the bleak future that it paints when it comes to federal climate action. For example, it proposes gutting and privatizing many of the climate-related federal agencies, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). What is your concern level that Project 2025 will actually be implemented, and do you find any facets of that plan particularly concerning?

Rachel

Everything in Project 2025 is alarming, and it is even more so because we have seen a previous Trump administration go on the attack on the mission, budgets, and staffing at key agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NOAA. 

The EPA’s mission is to protect public health and the environment. And NOAA is a premier science agency that is providing literally lifesaving science. For example, they produce early warning systems for disasters like hurricanes, but also very valuable data that help with economic activities that depend on weather and climate. It’s very alarming to think that science, which is meant to deliver a public benefit, could be under attack. We saw under the previous administration that they targeted scientists, they cut budgets, and morale was really low as employees watched their career expertise be attacked. We also saw the Trump administration nominate totally inappropriate agency leaders like Scott Pruitt and Rex Tillerson, who really were doing the complete opposite of their agency’s missions.

We expect that to be the case again, and unfortunately this time around, there has been a concerted effort to even more finely tune and hone the strategy of undermining the enterprise of government in the service of public good. That has real human consequences. We will see people post-disaster not getting the aid they need. We will see pollution rise in communities, especially communities that are overburdened already. All of that, of course, is not a foregone conclusion. It will be fought in courts and in other venues. But the incoming administration has shown itself to care very little about the public good and only about its own power, the fossil fuel industry, and other moneyed interests.

Jason

Is there anything that people can do to push a more ambitious climate agenda during this next administration?

Rachel

The most important thing is to recognize that climate change is now a pocketbook issue. It is now imposing a steep toll on our economy, destroying homes and critical infrastructure, and taking a toll on people’s health. This is the moment to connect the dots. 

Understandably, a lot of people are worried about the economy. The reality is that those kitchen-table, pocketbook concerns are very connected to climate change. We’re already seeing real estate markets and insurance markets be rocked by climate change. If we don’t take action now, we’re going to pay even more in the future.

Jason

What is your biggest hope and your biggest fear in regards to climate for this next administration?

Rachel

My biggest hope is that many, many people have now experienced firsthand the benefits of clean energy. They understand what it means to get your power, to have your car run, to have your community’s lights come on using sources that are not polluting. And so the hope is clean energy will continue to accelerate because it delivers economic benefits and health benefits. 

My hope is also that we have a very diverse climate movement now. We have people across the country who really care about climate action. So this is not just some elite conversation among people talking about modeling. This is a very wide swath of people who understand this is a daily life concern. It gives me hope that we’re seeing people take action at every level. They’re not waiting on the federal government. They’re moving ahead. And that will continue to be the case. 

My biggest fear is that this administration has shown itself not only to be anti-science, but it has also made deeply racist comments. They clearly are not approaching governing with a justice lens. And unfortunately, the climate crisis is taking a disproportionate toll on frontline communities which are often lower-income communities, communities of color, tribal nations, and Black and Brown communities. That really is my biggest fear—that the destructive agenda of this administration will take a hugely disproportionate toll on communities that are already marginalized.