With Donald Trump, a notorious climate change sceptic, poised to enter the White House for a second term, the climate world – from officials to campaigners and business executives – is bracing for the impact of his presidency.
Trump, a Republican business mogul who has called climate change a “scam”, has made no secret about his intentions. From plans to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement once more, to attacks on the scientific research underpinning our knowledge of global warming and the roll-back of key emission-cutting regulations, the incoming administration could mark a major setback for climate action.
Experts believe one of Trump’s first moves after being sworn in on January 20 could be to pull the US out of the landmark global climate agreement. If he takes that step – something he did last time around – the US would join just three other countries outside the Paris Agreement: Iran, Libya and Yemen.
Legal experts say Trump could quit Paris pact – but leaving UNFCCC much harder
The process to leave would take a year from the time Trump triggers it, meaning that the US will still be part of the Paris Agreement when the COP30 climate talks take place in Brazil in November.
Trump’s team is also reportedly mulling a more audacious attempt to pull the US out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the instrument underpinning global climate action, for the first time. While leaving the Paris pact would be legally straightforward, experts are divided on whether Trump could withdraw the US from the UNFCCC without Senate approval and – if he did – how easy it would be for a future president to re-join.
Frances Colón, lead for international climate policy at the Center for American Progress, told journalists this week that Washington’s role at COP30 is “not clear”. “Diplomats will do their best, but they’ll have to see whether the White House will be interested at all in engaging in COP talks, and this is still an open question,” she said.
Leaving the Paris pact would mean the US would no longer have to report on its greenhouse gas emissions each year and would have weaker legal responsibilities to provide climate finance for developing countries to adopt clean energy and adapt to a warming world.
Developing-world climate dollars at risk
Joe Thwaites, senior advocate for international climate finance with the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council, said Trump’s administration is expected to try to cut back on international climate finance provision everywhere it can – but that doesn’t mean funding will fall to zero.
Early in his first term in 2017, when Trump announced that the US would leave the Paris Agreement, he launched a blistering attack on the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) – which was littered with inaccuracies – and refused to deliver any more of a $3-billion pledge to the fund made by his predecessor, Barack Obama.
Super-rich have already burned more than their fair share of carbon for 2025
The US seems unlikely to stump up the $4 billion it now owes to the GCF under Trump, after the Biden administration made another large promise. But some international climate finance may be forthcoming if Congress continues approving money for organisations like the US Agency for International Development and the Global Environment Facility which back climate projects overseas.
“It’s not just about what Trump wants – and last time around, we saw that a lot… he didn’t get his way,” Thwaites said.
Trump-proofing climate finance
International climate finance allocations added up to about $600 million a year when Trump was previously in office. That’s a far cry from the roughly $11 billion a year provided by the end of Biden’s government, but advocates again plan to push hard to ensure the taps are not turned off.
Thwaites said international climate finance “is a vital investment”, adding “there’s still a strong case – including just a very self-interested case for why the US would want to carry on providing this kind of finance” – and geopolitically important partners such as small island developing states are likely to keep on asking for it as a priority.
In addition, the world is now better prepared for a climate-sceptic US president, he noted, compared with the shock in 2016. “People have priced in Trump’s impact,” Thwaites said.
This was reflected at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, he said, where the deal on a new finance goal to channel money to developing countries reflected the likelihood of Washington not playing ball for the next four years in terms of its size and composition.
For example, the decision to allow all finance coming via multilateral banks to be counted towards the goal to provide government finance of $300 billion a year by 2035 means that contributions made by the US can be included in the total, even if it pulls out of the Paris pact. Wealthier emerging economies like China are also encouraged to make voluntary contributions, which could help make up any shortfall due to the US.
Uncertain future for EXIM
One US provider of finance to clean energy overseas, however, could be severely affected under Trump.
According to Kate DeAngelis, deputy director for international finance at Friends of the Earth, Trump will be under pressure from some Republicans in Congress not to renew authorisation for the EXIM (Export-Import) Bank when its current mandate runs out in 2026.
This would effectively shut down the organisation. EXIM is a semi-independent agency and has backed both fossil fuel and renewable energy deployment abroad under both the previous Trump and Biden administrations.
Bid to end export credit help for oil and gas fails, with Korea and Türkiye opposed
It is now considering support for about a dozen projects mining for minerals like lithium, which are needed for the energy transition. DeAngelis said this support is now in greater doubt because of the change in the presidency, although she suspects the bank would still back them.
Under Biden, the bank continued to support fossil fuel projects in countries like Bahrain, and that is very unlikely to change under Trump, she added.
Climate regulation bonfire
Fossil fuels are also expected to get a boost on the domestic front. Under his refrain of “drill, baby, drill”, the president-elect has promised to increase oil and gas extraction in the US, while rolling back many of the landmark climate regulations introduced by the Biden administration aimed at slashing emissions.
Hannah Kolus, a senior analyst with Rhodium Group’s energy and climate practice, said it looks “very likely that Trump will pursue an aggressively deregulatory agenda” judging by his first stint in office and recent statements from the incoming administration.
“Rolling back regulations would be a lengthy process, so it’s not going to happen on day one,” added Kolus, “but certainly by the end of his term, he could remove many of the key climate regulations enacted over the past four years.”
WA Parish Generating Station, a natural gas and coal power plant, in Fort Bend County near Houston, Texas on June 25, 2023. (Photo by Reginald Mathalone/NurPhoto)
The Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for power plants could be first on the chopping block. Announced less than a year ago, the rules require existing coal-fired power plants that plan to operate beyond 2039 and large new gas-fired power stations to cut 90% of their GHG emissions by 2032. Trump vowed to revoke those regulations on the election campaign trail last August when he described them as an “anti-American energy crusade”.
Another set of rules aimed at “sharply” reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations risk a similar fate, along with a new levy meant to punish those not complying with the measures. Fossil-fuel lobby groups have repeatedly called on the incoming administration to cancel the methane regulations.
To reform climate COPs, we should start with the voting rules
More stringent emissions standards for passenger cars and small trucks – announced in March 2024 – may also be targeted.
Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the climate and energy programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said it is “very clear” the broader intention is to boost the fossil fuel sector. The rhetoric of many nominees for key positions in the incoming administration is about “delivering for the fossil fuel industry, promoting their profits, their narrow interest over the public interest,” she told Climate Home.
Reprieve for IRA measures?
While reversing specific regulations might be an easy win for Trump, the future of the mammoth clean energy incentives enacted through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) remains less clear.
Trump has repeatedly taken aim at tax credits for electric vehicles and renewable energy, labelling them wasteful spending. Reuters reported last November that his transition team was working on plans to kill off the subsidies.
But experts think it won’t be easy for the Trump administration to dismantle the IRA. Congress holds the power to modify tax credits and, although it is now Republican-controlled, Trump could struggle to convince enough lawmakers to push through its agenda.
Rhodium Group’s Kolus said that’s because Republican districts have benefited the most from IRA subsidies so far – and there’s a history of bipartisan support for many of those. “It seems unlikely that Congress is going to repeal all of the energy tax credits,” she added.
Leading Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested that “a scalpel and not a sledgehammer” should be used for making changes. Whichever tool Trump ends up wielding, the question is what that would do to the emissions-cutting targets spelled out in the US’s updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement unveiled last December.
The Biden administration insisted that the US could reach the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 61-66% below 2005 levels by 2035, even if Trump rolls back climate policy. But others are more sceptical. Even if the IRA was left untouched, undoing regulations on fossil fuel standards alone would put the US on a less ambitious path to reduce emissions by 31-51% by 2035, according to modelling by Rhodium Group.
Climate science under threat
Climate science is another domain where experts fear the incoming administration will go on the offensive. Trump has a lengthy track record of amplifying disinformation while denigrating legitimate climate research.
Cleetus of UCS told Climate Home “a very somber mood” pervades the scientific community as it braces for the start of an administration that, she said, “holds a deeply anti-scientific view”.
Cleetus expects the Trump team will try and “take a wrecking ball” to federal agencies at the forefront of climate research. That would include the Environment Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which plays a crucial role in monitoring global temperatures and devising climate models.
Record-hot 2024 shows world must adapt to extremes, says EU climate service
“It is a real problem,” said Cleetus, “because these career scientists are doing the kind of bedrock science that helps inform good policies that we can take to both prevent climate change and protect against its impacts.”
And the consequences of a potential Trump attack on climate science would reach far beyond the American borders. The US government is one of the world’s largest supporters of climate science and its federal agencies provide key instruments, such as satellites, that facilitate the understanding of global warming, its causes and impacts across the globe.
Despite the gathering storm clouds, Cleetus said “we should not concede that this destruction will be complete”.
“Just because all of these political signals are aligned one way, it does not mean that we live in a dictatorship,” she added. “The United States is still a democracy. There are public interests that will come forward in different kinds of ways.”
(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; additional reporting by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post What Trump’s second term means for climate action in the US and beyond appeared first on Climate Home News.
What Trump’s second term means for climate action in the US and beyond
Climate Change
Drought Turns Southeastern US Into ‘Tinderbox’ as Wildfires Rage
Weather extremes fuel wildfires that have burned through tens of thousands of acres across Georgia, Florida and other states.
Drought and fire are a dangerous duo. The Southeastern United States is witnessing this firsthand as several major blazes burn tens of thousands of acres across the parched region, destroying homes and prompting evacuations in some areas. Florida and Georgia have been particularly hard hit, and strong winds and unusually low humidity have made it difficult to combat the flames.
Drought Turns Southeastern US Into ‘Tinderbox’ as Wildfires Rage
Climate Change
Night Skies and Shifting Stars: How Indigenous Celestial Knowledge Tracks a Changing Climate
When the land no longer answers the stars the way it once did, Indigenous peoples are among the first to notice — and the first to ask why.
A Sky Full of Knowledge
Look up on a clear night on Turtle Island and you’re seeing a sky that has guided human life for thousands of years. Across Indigenous nations in Canada, detailed systems of celestial knowledge developed not as abstract science but as living, practical guides —telling people when to plant, when to harvest, when herds would move, and when ice would come. This astronomical knowledge was woven into language, ceremony, and everyday life, passed down through generations with remarkable precision.
The Mi’kmaq and the Celestial Bear
Among the Mi’kmaq of Atlantic Canada, star stories are ecological calendars, precise and functional. The story of Muin and the Seven Bird Hunters connects the annual movement of what Western astronomy calls Ursa Major to the seasonal cycle of hunting and harvest: the bear rises in spring, is hunted through summer, and falls to earth in autumn. This knowledge was brought to broader public attention in 2009 during the International Year of Astronomy, when Mi’kmaq Elders Lillian Marshall of Potlotek First Nation and Murdena Marshall of Eskasoni First Nation shared the story through an animated film produced at Cape Breton University narrated in English, French, and Mi’kmaq.¹ The story encodes specific observations about when and where to hunt, and which species to expect at which time of year. It is science in narrative form.
The Anishinaabe and the Seasonal Star Map
Among the Anishinaabe peoples of the Great Lakes and northern Ontario, celestial knowledge forms part of a comprehensive seasonal understanding. Knowledge keepers like Michael Wassegijig Price of Wikwemikong First Nation have described how Anishinaabe constellations quite different from those of Western astronomy connect the movement of the heavens to naming ceremonies, seasonal gatherings, and land practices.² The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada now offers planispheres featuring Indigenous constellations from Cree, Ojibwe, and Dakota sky traditions, recognizing their value as both cultural heritage and ecological knowledge systems.³
When the Stars and the Land Fall Out of Rhythm
Here’s the challenge that climate change has introduced: the stars still move on their ancient, reliable schedule. But the land no longer always responds as expected. Migratory birds that once arrived when certain constellations appeared are now showing up earlier or later. Ice that once formed in predictable windows is forming weeks late, or not at all. Berry harvests, fish runs, animal migrations, all once timed by celestial cues accumulated over millennia are shifting. Indigenous knowledge holders across Canada describe this as a kind of dissonance: the sky remains faithful, but the land has changed.⁴
Long-Baseline Ecological Records
Far from being historical curiosity, Indigenous celestial knowledge systems are now being recognized by researchers as long-baseline ecological calendars —records of how nature behaved over centuries, encoded in story and ceremony. When an Elder observes that a particular star rising no longer predicts the arrival of certain geese, that observation represents a departure from a pattern that may have held true for hundreds of years. The Climate Atlas of Canada integrates Indigenous knowledge observations alongside western climate data, recognizing that both contribute meaningfully to understanding ecological change.⁵
Keeping the Knowledge Alive
Language revitalization and land-based education programs are helping ensure this knowledge reaches the future. From youth astronomy nights on-reserve to the integration of Indigenous sky stories in school curricula, there is growing recognition that these knowledge systems belong to what comes next, not only what came before. As Canada grapples with accelerating ecological change, the quiet precision of thousands of years of skyward observation offers something no satellite can fully replicate: a continuous record of the relationship between the cosmos and a living land.
Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock
Image Credit: Dustin Bowdige, Unsplash
References
[1] Marshall, L., Marshall, M., Harris, P., & Bartlett, C. (2010). Muin and the Seven Bird Hunters: A Mi’kmaw Night Sky Story. Cape Breton University Press. See also: Integrative Science, CBU. (2009). Background on the Making of the Muin Video for IYA2009. http://www.integrativescience.ca/uploads/activities/BACKGROUND-making-video-Muin-Seven-Bird-Hunters-IYA-binder.pdf
[2] Price, M.W. (Various). Anishinaabe celestial knowledge. Wikwemikong First Nation. Referenced in: Royal Astronomical Society of Canada Indigenous Astronomy resources.
[3] Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. (2020). Indigenous Skies planisphere series. RASC. https://www.rasc.ca/indigenous-skies
[4] Neilson, H. (2022, December 11). The night sky over Mi’kmaki: A Q&A with astronomer Hilding Neilson. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/hilding-neilson-indigenizing-astronomy-1.6679072
[5] Climate Atlas of Canada. (2024). Prairie Climate Centre, University of Winnipeg. https://climateatlas.ca/
The post Night Skies and Shifting Stars: How Indigenous Celestial Knowledge Tracks a Changing Climate appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.
https://indigenousclimatehub.ca/2026/04/night-skies-and-shifting-stars-how-indigenous-celestial-knowledge-tracks-a-changing-climate/
Climate Change
World ‘will not see significant return to coal’ in 2026 – despite Iran crisis
A much-discussed “return to coal” by some countries in the wake of the Iran war is likely to be far more limited than thought, amounting to a global rise of no more than 1.8% in coal power output this year.
The new analysis by thinktank Ember, shared exclusively with Carbon Brief, is a “worst-case” scenario and the reality could be even lower.
Separate data shows that, to date, there has been no “return to coal” in 2026.
While some countries, such as Japan, Pakistan and the Philippines, have responded to disrupted gas supplies with plans to increase their coal use, the new analysis shows that these actions will likely result in a “small rise” at most.
In fact, the decline of coal power in some countries and the potential for global electricity demand growth to slow down could mean coal generation continues falling this year.
Experts tell Carbon Brief that “the big story isn’t about a coal comeback” and any increase in coal use is “merely masking a longer-term structural decline”.
Instead, they say clean-energy projects are emerging as more appealing investments during the fossil-fuel driven energy crisis.
‘Return to coal’
The conflict following the US-Israeli attacks on Iran has disrupted global gas supplies, particularly after Iran blocked the strait of Hormuz, a key chokepoint in the Persian Gulf.
A fifth of the world’s liquified natural gas (LNG) is normally shipped through this region, mainly supplying Asian countries. The blockage in this supply route means there is now less gas available and the remaining supplies are more expensive.
(Note that while the strait usually carries a fifth of LNG trade, this amounts to a much smaller share of global gas supplies overall, with most gas being moved via pipelines.)
With gas supplies constrained and prices remaining well above pre-conflict levels, at least eight countries in Asia and Europe have announced plans to increase their coal-fired electricity generation, or to review or delay plans to phase out coal power.
These nations include Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Germany and Italy. Many of these nations are major users of coal power.
Such announcements have triggered a wave of reporting by global media outlets and analysts about a “return to coal”. Some have lamented a trend that is “incompatible with climate imperatives”, while others have even framed this as a positive development that illustrates coal’s return “from the dead”.
This mirrors a trend seen after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which many commentators said would lead to a surge in European coal use, due to disrupted gas supplies from Russia.
In fact, despite a spike in 2022, EU coal use has returned to its “terminal decline” and reached a historic low in 2025.
Gas to coal
So far, the evidence suggests that there has been no return to coal in 2026.
Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found that, in March, coal power generation remained flat globally and a fall in gas-fired generation was “offset by large increases in solar and wind power, rather than coal”.
However, as some governments only announced their coal plans towards the end of March, these figures may not capture their impact.
To get a sense of what that impact could be, Ember assessed the impact of coal policy changes and market responses across 16 countries, plus the 27 member states of the EU, which together accounted for 95% of total coal power generation in 2025.
For each country, the analysis considers a maximum “worst-case” scenario for switching from gas to coal power in the face of high gas prices.
It also considers the potential for any out-of-service coal power plants to return and for there to be delays in previously expected closures as a result of the response to the energy crisis.
Ember concludes that these factors could increase coal use by 175 terawatt hours (TWh), or 1.8%, in 2026 compared to 2025.
(This increase is measured relative to what would have happened without the energy crisis and does not account for wider trends in electricity generation from coal, which could see demand decline overall. Last year, coal power dropped by 63TWh, or 0.6%.)
Roughly three-quarters of the global effect in the Ember analysis is from potential gas-to-coal switching in China and the EU.
Other notable increases could come from switching in India and Indonesia and – to a lesser extent – from coal-policy shifts in South Korea, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
However, widely reported policy changes by Japan, Thailand and the Philippines are estimated to have very little, if any, impact on coal-power generation in 2026. The table below briefly summarises the potential for and reasoning behind the estimated increases in coal generation in each country in 2026.
Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember, stresses that the 1.8% figure is an upper estimate, telling Carbon Brief:
“This would only happen if gas prices remained very high for the rest of the year and if there were sufficient coal stocks at power plants. The real risk of higher coal burn in 2026 comes not from coal units returning…but rather from pockets of gas-to-coal switching by existing power plants, primarily in China and the EU.”
Moreover, Jones says there is a real chance that global coal power could continue falling over the course of this year, partly driven by the energy crisis. He explains:
“If the energy crisis starts to dent electricity demand growth, coal generation – as well as gas generation – might actually be lower than before the crisis.”
‘Structural decline’
Energy experts tell Carbon Brief that Ember’s analysis aligns with their own assessments of the state of coal power.
Coal already had lower operation costs than gas before the energy crisis. This means that coal power plants were already being run at high levels in coal-dependent Asian economies that also use imported LNG to generate electricity. As such, they have limited potential to cut their need for LNG by further increasing coal generation.
Christine Shearer, who manages the global coal plant tracker at Global Energy Monitor, tells Carbon Brief that, in the EU, there is a shrinking pool of countries where gas-to-coal switching is possible:
“In Europe, coal fleets are smaller, older and increasingly uneconomic, while wind, solar and storage are becoming more competitive and widespread.”
In the context of the energy crisis, Italy has announced plans to delay its coal phaseout from 2025 to 2038. This plan, dismissed by the ECCO thinktank as “ineffective and costly”, would have minimal impact given coal only provides around 1% of the country’s power.
Notably, experts say that there is no evidence of the kind of structural “return to coal” that would spark concerns about countries’ climate goals. There have been no new coal plants announced in recent weeks.
Suzie Marshall, a policy advisor working on the “coal-to-clean transition” at E3G, tells Carbon Brief:
“We’re seeing possible delayed retirements and higher utilisation [of existing coal plants], as understandable emergency measures to keep the lights on, but not investment in new coal projects…Any short-term increase in coal consumption that we may see in response to this ongoing energy crisis is merely masking a longer-term structural decline.”
With cost-competitive solar, wind and batteries given a boost over fossil fuels by the energy crisis, there have been numerous announcements about new renewable energy projects since the start of war, including from India, Japan and Indonesia.
Shearer says that, rather than a “sustained coal comeback” in 2026, the Iran war “strengthens the case for renewables”. She says:
“If anything, a second gas shock in less than five years strengthens the case for renewables as the more secure long-term path.”
Jones says that Ember expects “little change in overall fossil generation, but with a small rise in coal and a fall in gas” in 2026. He adds:
“This would maximise gas-to-coal switching globally outside of the US, leaving no possibility for further switching in future years. Therefore, the big story isn’t about a coal comeback. It’s about how the relative economics of renewables, compared to fossil fuels, have been given a superboost by the crisis.”
The post World ‘will not see significant return to coal’ in 2026 – despite Iran crisis appeared first on Carbon Brief.
World ‘will not see significant return to coal’ in 2026 – despite Iran crisis
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits





