Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Trump’s America
On November 5th, U.S. climate change work was dealt a devastating blow.
In less than two months, the U.S. will once again be in the hands of an administration in active and hostile climate denial, with supportive Republican majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives. This election impacts not only what federal monies and programs are administered to fight climate change here in the U.S., but also the actions of our strategic and economic partners globally. While the U.S. does not directly control global policy trends, it is the world’s dominant economy; other countries look to us for policy signals, and the results of our election will likely ripple across the world.
Narratives published ahead of election day described this election as pivotal in the world’s fight against climate change. Some said a Harris administration would continue and intensify action to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. Others thought a politically constrained Harris administration could be moved to take more meaningful climate action. For most the cynical, the only consolations of a Harris victory would be that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) rollout would continue and that democratic institutions would remain intact, allowing for continued engagement with the federal government.
Despite their differing takes on a Harris presidency, the climate-conscious agree that a Trump administration will offer none of these scenarios and contribute significantly to global climate change.
Those working in climate and sustainability are reeling, wondering how the next four years (and beyond) will impact their critical work. Some are already mourning the loss of a narrow opportunity to meet UNEP and Paris Agreement trajectories to mitigate the worst of climate change, with 2030 being a critical benchmark year. Federal civil servants are historically steadfast and effective across administrations, but even they are struggling to remain positive in this new reality. As Bill McKibben somberly reminded us at this year’s Michigan Climate Summit, the administration after Trump will take office in January 2029 – this was the last election that mattered for the U.S. federal response to climate change.
The situation is dire. And yet, hope remains.
I recently spent a wonderful couple of days down at Caney Fork Farms in Carthage, Tennessee, at the sixth annual Climate Underground conference. Climate Underground is former Vice President Al Gore’s regenerative agriculture gathering hosted at his family farm in the rolling hills of southern Appalachia. This year the conference was co-hosted by Alice Waters, author and farm-to-table pioneer, with Gore headlining and moderating nearly every panel conversation.
I was fortunate to meet dozens of people working in private and public sectors on every aspect of agricultural sustainability you can think of: large- and small-scale farmers, soil biome scientists, carbon modeling experts, school food program administrators, labor organizers, legislative staffers, farm tech entrepreneurs – the list goes on. The 250 or so conference participants came from all over the country, with a handful of international attendees and speakers.
In the aftermath of the election, what strikes me most about my Climate Underground experience is the tangible evidence of a deep and diverse roster of passionate individuals working to improve humanity’s odds of addressing the climate crisis, regardless of the political backdrop. Is federal funding important for some of this work? Absolutely. Will innovation and progress in agricultural sustainability be paused in the absence of federal support? Not a chance.
This sentiment is also reflected in my experience at the Michigan Climate Summit, hosted in late September here at the University of Michigan. Panel discussions at this event primarily revolved around issues of energy, water, and justice, and attendees were a mix of students, locals, and academics. Aside from one session specifically discussing the progress and implications of IRA implementation with panelists including EPA’s Chief of Staff Dan Utech, conversations were largely agnostic of federal influence in the fight against climate change. If you ask those who are doing the on-the-ground work of community engagement and policymaking at the local level, they will tell you climate work is fundamentally not contingent upon a sympathetic federal government.
It certainly helps that business is booming in renewable energy, and that renewables are now generally cheaper than fossil fuels. For some, this is the practical upshot of a post-IRA economy; the roughly $98 billion spent so far to accelerate the transition to renewable energy has built enough economic momentum that it would be too unpopular to curtail. It may be the bill’s saving grace that red states politically opposed to addressing climate change benefit the most from IRA spending, especially given Trump’s tendency to cater to majority-supporter states. It seems unlikely that, despite promises to “drill baby, drill,” a Trump administration would successfully cut fossil energy costs enough to reverse the progress made in the renewable market. Additionally, the U.S. economy exists within the global context, and renewable energy is taking the world by force. Some say that for the U.S. to remain competitive it will need to continue its renewables trajectory despite political winds. However, global stock market responses after the election darken this outlook.
At the end of the day, we can’t rely on the next presidential administration or the 119th congress to continue federal support for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and judiciary prospects aren’t any cheerier. The recent Chevron v. NRDC reversal has curtailed the authority of federal agencies like the EPA to uphold their mandates, which was just the latest in a string of SCOTUS deregulatory decisions over the past decade. While there is a chance that business trends will maintain some momentum, this moment calls for redoubling efforts to build grassroots momentum at the sub-federal level.
States, counties, municipalities, neighborhoods – these are now the most promising venues for advancing just and equitable solutions to climate change. Making necessary progress on reducing carbon emissions in the next few years without federal support will be extraordinarily challenging, but climate change is becoming ever more apparent. Nearly two-thirds of Americans are concerned about climate change, driven by the increasing frequency and strength of extreme weather events. We have historical models in movements for civil rights, gender equality, health and wellness, and indigenous lifeways and ethics to bring global climate change down to the community level. These struggles and others contain lessons and strategies to inform collective action against our super wicked problem in a hostile political environment.
What’s more, local actions are made more effective through intermediaries and broader networking – and such climate networks are becoming more and more abundant: see Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Climate Reality Project, Sunrise Movement, Sierra Club, Third Act, Extinction Rebellion, and many more. Increasingly, state and local governments are taking climate planning and implementation into their own hands, often in partnership with nongovernmental organizations. Earlier this year, the Sierra Club celebrated a major victory in its support for a new Vermont law establishing the nation’s first Climate Superfund, with similar legislation in the pipeline in New York, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts.
This is a dark moment. The American public has dealt a serious blow to U.S. and global climate movements. Many are struggling to see a way through the next four years and beyond.
And, people from all sectors and walks of life continue to put their passions and creativity to use in pursuit of climate change mitigation and adaptation. In the process, they are building better connections to each other and to the natural systems they are striving to defend. It is within these communities that we stand to build the movements and solidarity needed to secure a livable planet for future generations.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Biography of Author
Tyler is completing master’s degrees at University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability and the Ford School of Public Policy after serving over ten years in the United States Air Force. His academic interests include agricultural climate adaptation and urban-rural politics, and he has written and published work on sustainability leadership (forthcoming), agricultural sustainability, and Great Lakes resource management. He hopes to continue working on issues of climate change adaptation and environmental justice after graduating in May 2025.
Edited By: Alina Devoogd, MPP/MS ’27 // Milena Saakyan, MPP ’26 // Nicholas Birdsong, Phd JD
