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.
A protester at COP29 calls on wealthy nations to “pay up” (Photo: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth)
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
FLIP OFF WOODSIDE TO SAVE SCOTT REEF: Greenpeace, Michael Caton, Thinkerbell mobilise Australia to challenge gas project at Scott Reef
6 November 2026
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has joined forces with Thinkerbell and iconic Australian actor Michael Caton on a major public movement and behaviour change initiative to save Scott Reef, calling on Australians to “flip off” gas corporation Woodside. The company plans to drill for gas at Australia’s largest oceanic reef, home to vulnerable green sea turtles, endangered pygmy blue whales, and thousands of marine species, off the coast of Western Australia.
WATCH THE FULL VIDEO HERE
At the heart of the collaboration is somebody who knows a thing or two about fighting off corporations to protect a home: Michael Caton. Set in a courtroom, Caton gives his voice to a voiceless inhabitant, a green sea turtle, and together they invite the public to show their support to save Scott Reef.
Designed to shift public behaviour and drive national debate, the movement asks the public to tag their MPs – applying direct political pressure on Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Albanese Albanese to “flip off” Woodside’s dirty gas project, which would see up to 57 toxic wells drilled around Scott Reef off the coast of Western Australia.
Voiced by Michael Caton and set to a soundtrack provided by Radiohead, the narrative centres on our hero turtle defending her home from corporate overreach in a courtroom showdown. As the turtle defiantly flips her flippers at Woodside, Michael Caton calls on everyday Australians to take a stand and help save her home.
Michael Caton said: “I’m proud to lend my voice to Greenpeace to help save Scott Reef. The marine life out there can’t speak up, so we need to. Some things are too precious to risk.”
Glenn Walker, Head of Nature at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, added: “Woodside’s dirty gas project at Scott Reef, Australia’s largest oceanic reef, is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, threatening thousands of species, including the extremely vulnerable green sea turtles that nest there. By literally flipping off Woodside and Big Gas, Aussies are cutting through corporate spin and sending an unignorable message to Environment Minister Murray Watt and the Albanese government: save Scott Reef.”
Adam Ferrier, co-founder of Thinkerbell, said: “You can fight a corporation in the courtroom forever, but the real power to deliver lasting protection rests in parliament. Right now, our MPs hold an extraordinary opportunity to safeguard Scott Reef for generations to come. I’m proudly from WA, and I know how much the natural environment means to the people and economy of Western Australia. I’m also sure Woodside wants to do the right thing, and with enough public support and government action we’ll together save Scott Reef.
Paul Swann, Chief Creative Tinker at Thinkerbell notes: “When the stakes are this high, polite ads don’t work. You need an unignorable provocation that galvanises people and puts the pressure squarely where it belongs, on our leaders in Canberra. This isn’t just about protecting a reef; it’s about holding power to account.”
Greenpeace has been campaigning to stop Woodside’s dirty gas plans for years, increasing pressure on the Australian government to save Scott Reef from becoming an industrialised gas zone. From actions aboard Woodside’s gas platform to cinemas across Australia, Greenpeace isn’t backing off in their advocacy to save Scott Reef.
Rolling out across OOH, digital, social and cinema with an interactive landing page, this project will be amplified by high-profile figures urging Australians to take action, tag their MPs, and defend Scott Reef. The movement combines cinematic storytelling with organic social mobilsation and earned media, planned via Thinkerbell’s Alchemy model to drive real behaviour change and impact.
Marking their first Australian tour in 15 years, English rock band Radiohead will play 16 arena shows across Perth, Melbourne and Sydney in May and June 2027. A $2 donation is included in every ticket price with proceeds going to Greenpeace Australia Pacific and the Australian Marine Conservation Society. Radiohead will match the final amount raised.
ENDS
WATCH NOW:
FOR ASSETS OR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Adam Ferrier | 0413 633 344 | adamferrier@thinkerbell.com
Kimberley Bernard | 0407 581 404 | kbernard@greenpeace.org
ABOUT THINKERBELL
Thinkerbell is a 9-year-old independent creative company. We practise Measured Magic – the coming together of marketing science and hardcore creativity – to help our clients build their brands and change behaviour.
ABOUT GREENPEACE
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is a global independent campaigning organisation that uses peaceful protest and creative confrontation to expose environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
Climate Change
Jimmy Barnes, King Gizz lead Aussie music supergroup on new release to save Scott Reef
SYDNEY, Monday 9 November 2026 — Australian music icons Jimmy Barnes AO, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard, Fred Leone, Gordi & Montaigne are among the more than 20 Australian artists who have joined forces to release a new song with an urgent message: save Scott Reef.
Released today, “If Not Now” is a reimagining of King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard’s Environmental Music Prize-winning song “If Not Now, Then When?”, and is a collaboration between Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Green Music Australia, and p(doom) Records.
Scott Reef is a 15-million-year-old ancient coral reef located 270 kilometres off the Kimberley coast of Western Australia. It is Australia’s largest oceanic reef and is home to thousands of marine animals and endangered species, but fossil fuel corporation Woodside plans to drill up to 57 toxic wells under and around the reef, threatening to turn it into an industrial gas zone.
“If Not Now” is the reef’s first and only release, out on all digital platforms and on limited edition 7” vinyl. The song is accompanied by cover art and visualiser from acclaimed Australian artist and ARIA-winning music video director Jonathan Zawada (Flume, The Avalanches).
Speaking about the track, Stu Mackenzie (lead singer, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard) said: “Why are we still digging up coal and gas? Why are we allowing this? Why is the Australian government so hell-bent on destroying our beautiful wild and untouched places? I’m proud that a King Gizz song was chosen to represent a growing movement of people who are asking these questions and applying pressure. Let’s shut it down and keep it beautiful.”
Rock legend Jimmy Barnes AO said: “Scott Reef is one of the few pristine reefs left in the world and it happens to be on our doorstep. We’re custodians of it — we’re supposed to be looking after it. It’s ridiculous. We must protect our country and look after what we value most, which is the nature and the beauty of this country.”
Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner for Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “I’m filled with hope by the incredible musicians and artists who are using their voices and skills to amplify the voices of half a million Australians who are calling on the government to stop Woodside’s nature and climate-wrecking gas plans and save Scott Reef. Australian music has long been a powerful catalyst for change, so saving Scott Reef is a no-brainer for Australian music lovers.”
Contributing artists (in alphabetic order):
- Alex Lahey
- Brinkley Davies (marine biologist/freediver)
- Birdland
- Close Counters
- DOBBY
- Fred Leone (Artist of the Year at the 2026 NIMAs, singing in Butculla)
- Gordi
- John Butler
- Jimmy Barnes
- King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard
- Leah Senior
- Mahalia Barnes
- Montaigne
- Ngaiire
- NIDALA
- Peppa Lane (Spacey Jane)
- Ruby Rodgers (2026 Environmental Music Prize winner)
- Terry Guyula (Drifting Clouds, singing in Yolgu Matha)
- Tom Mahler (The Moving Stills)
- Urthboy
Production cast:
- Becki Whitton (G Flip, Allday, Stella Donnelly)
- Stu McKenzie (King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard)
- Tay Blunt (FVNERAL)
- Tim Shiel (Green Music Australia)
Three generations of the Barnes family, Jimmy Barnes, his daughter, Mahalia Barnes and granddaughter Ruby Rodgers, contributed to the track.
The release comes amid growing national pressure on the Federal Government to save Scott Reef from Woodside’s gas drilling plans.
Last week, a leaked letter from WA’s environmental watchdog to Woodside revealed the agency deemed drilling risks to Scott Reef ‘serious, significant and irreversible’, while Greenpeace Australia Pacific activists occupied a major Woodside gas platform, and Perth communities delivered one of the biggest environmental petitions in Australia’s history to Woodside HQ.
The Federal Government is expected to make a decision on Woodside’s Scott Reef drilling plans in the coming months.
-ENDS-
Media contact
To arrange an interview or for more information, contact Emma Sangalli on 0431 513 465 or emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org
High res images and footage of Scott Reef can be found here (NEW) and here.
Jimmy Barnes, King Gizz lead Aussie music supergroup on new release to save Scott Reef
What might a high-school course look like if it helped students understand climate change—and see a place for themselves in responding to it?
Not simply a course about emissions or environmental problems. A course that connects science with the places students know, the decisions their communities face, and the work they might one day do.
Canadian schools already teach climate change and environmental responsibility, including through required curriculum expectations. Ontario’s Grade 9 science course, for example, asks students to assess climate change’s effects on ecosystems and communities, including First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities. Across Canada, however, the depth and placement of climate learning vary, and opportunities for more specialized study often sit within elective courses.
Part 1 explored how we could build on that foundation through sustained learning from elementary school onward, shaped with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis governments, educators, and education authorities.
One next step worth considering is a required senior-secondary course that brings these threads together. Imagine a course called Climate, Land, and Future Economies: a place to explore climate evidence, community resilience, Indigenous governance, practical solutions, and the possibilities of a changing world.
The idea is not to turn every student into a climate scientist. It is to give every student a stronger foundation for the choices ahead—whether their path leads to university, college, an apprenticeship, employment, entrepreneurship, public service, or work within their own Nation or community.
Start with the science—and make room for questions
A meaningful course would begin with sound science: how the greenhouse effect works, how carbon moves through living systems, how energy choices affect emissions, and how scientists study a changing climate.
But the learning could become more engaging when students have an opportunity to investigate questions close to home.
What can local weather records tell us? How do we distinguish a single unusual season from a longer-term trend? What does a climate projection mean for a community planning its roads, housing, or water systems? What can a dataset tell us—and what remains outside its scope?
These questions invite students into the process of understanding evidence rather than asking them simply to memorize conclusions.
They also create space to discuss uncertainty honestly. Students could explore how researchers reach conclusions, why findings sometimes change, and how to distinguish a legitimate scientific question from a misleading claim.
The aim would be informed curiosity: the confidence to ask good questions, find credible information, and explain what the evidence supports.
Look at climate through the life of a community
Climate learning becomes more meaningful when it moves beyond global averages and into the places people live.
A class might explore a neighbourhood with little shade, a community concerned about flooding, or the choices involved in preparing a school for extreme heat. Students could examine a local emergency plan, speak with community planners, or investigate how housing and transportation decisions affect environmental risk.
The questions soon become as much about people as about climate.
Who has access to a cool, safe place during a heat wave? Who can leave when an evacuation is ordered? What happens when roads, water systems, or food supplies are disrupted? What resources does a community need to prepare?
A course could help students explore how housing, health, income, disability, infrastructure, and access to services shape people’s experiences of environmental change. It could also introduce environmental racism and historic dispossession through carefully researched cases, giving students a way to understand why risks and resources are not always distributed fairly.
That approach would connect climate learning with civic life. Students would begin to see that resilience is not only about stronger buildings or better technology. It is also about relationships, public services, and the ability of communities to care for their members.
Recognize that climate decisions are governance decisions
Consider the questions surrounding a new transmission line, wind project, mine, protected area, or housing development.
Where should it go? Who decides? Whose knowledge informs the decision? Who benefits, and who carries the costs?
These are environmental questions, but they are also questions about governance.
A climate course offers an opportunity to introduce Treaty relationships, Indigenous rights and title, consent, and jurisdiction through specific places and decisions. Rather than presenting the