‘Fundamental dilemmas’ regarding U.S. climate strategies, yet determination persists

Actions taken by the Trump administration will likely decelerate the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources, but they will not entirely prevent it, and advancements in energy will continue internationally even if stalled in the U.S., according to Harvard climate specialists.

The newly elected president has rapidly initiated the undoing of his predecessors’ climate initiatives, including an executive order commencing the yearlong procedure of withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, a framework for nations to collectively combat global warming. The administration has halted permits for new wind energy installations, indicated intentions to eliminate incentives for electric vehicle purchases, and is working to retract funds awarded to contractors as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which included important climate change measures. Furthermore, it has aggressively moved to reduce staffing in federal organizations, including those devoted to combating climate change.

“We find ourselves in a highly uncertain and somewhat grim period,” remarked Daniel Schrag, Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology, professor of environmental science, and engineering and professor of public policy. “From my viewpoint, there are fundamental questions: Will the Trump administration attempt to obstruct all funding for climate science? Will federal funding for climate science continue to exist in the U.S.?”

Schrag spoke Wednesday as the facilitator of a discussion organized by the Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability. Joining him at the event were Elaine Buckberg, a senior fellow at the Salata Institute and previous chief economist for General Motors; Jody Freeman, the Archibald Cox Professor of Law and head of Harvard Law’s Environmental and Energy Law Program; and Robert Stavins, A.J. Meyer Professor of Energy and Economic Development at the Kennedy School.

A fitting metaphor from recent U.S. history concerning climate policy might be likened to the trajectory of the Affordable Care Act, Buckberg commented. Enacted in 2010 after divisive debate, the ACA endured numerous court battles and fierce political strife, emerging with some modifications yet largely remaining intact. Today, it delivers health insurance to approximately 45 million Americans, while animosity over the law has diminished.

“If you examine, for instance, the transition to electric vehicles — although this would apply to solar and other technologies as well — I believe it is simply irreversible,” Buckberg stated. “What we are witnessing is a shift in timing. I feel it’s irreversible because it represents a superior technology that is on track to become more affordable. There is also international regulatory pressure at play. The auto industry is global, and halting that progress is impossible. What may change is the mix of sales within the U.S. in the upcoming years and which companies are leading those sales.”

Freeman hypothesized that the administration would challenge California’s exemption from federal vehicle emissions regulations as a method to prevent the state from implementing stricter standards that would promote the adoption of electric vehicles. She also noted that it seems the president will target the “endangerment finding,” a 2009 EPA determination that provides the authority for government agencies to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

“This is a bold and aggressive strategy that the administration is clearly embracing,” Freeman stated. “It reflects a maximalist, Article II, presidential-authority approach.”

She continued: “The unfolding of these events is astonishing, inflicting significant damage to important issues. However, we have yet to witness the public health consequences and the everyday repercussions of slashing away through the federal apparatus.”

In regards to the U.S. exit from the Paris climate agreement, Stavins mentioned that the global ramifications of this decision are still unclear. Currently, he indicated that the lack of U.S. pressure will diminish the momentum towards more ambitious objectives set by other nations. Additionally, the potential cessation of U.S. climate finance contributions to developing nations may influence the investments of other countries. Already, as Stavins pointed out, there are signs that three additional countries—Indonesia, Argentina, and New Zealand—are contemplating withdrawing from the Paris agreement.

If sufficient nations exit, he warned, the Paris framework could disintegrate. While such a scenario would impede international progress in the immediate future, it might also pave the way for more decisive action, he suggested. The slow advancements under Paris have faced critique, and a subsequent agreement with fewer countries, similar to the G20—which encompasses a significant portion of the global economy and the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas emissions—could lead to quicker, more meaningful changes, Stavins concluded.

“It’s conceivable that if the Paris agreement were to unravel, we might observe countries exploring alternative strategies that could prove more effective.”

Clearly, the challenge of climate change is not disappearing, and despite the shift in U.S. policy, other nations—and international businesses—will forge ahead, the panelists concurred.

“I’m not ready to concede that it’s all over,” Schrag remarked. “There is still a tremendous amount of work in front of us, and our efforts regarding climate change will persist irrespective of the occurrences in the upcoming years of the Trump administration.”