Experts Warn of Lasting Impact

President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, marked by his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and a renewed focus on domestic oil, gas, and artificial intelligence (AI), has reignited global fears about the United States’ role in combating the climate crisis. Experts warn that these moves not only pose a significant setback domestically but could also derail climate initiatives worldwide, as nations take cues from the world’s largest economy.

Trump, inaugurated on January 20 as the 47th President of the United States, wasted no time in reversing his predecessor’s climate policies. His administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, announced as his first executive order, sets a precedent that could undermine global commitments to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

At the same time, Trump has pledged to ramp up domestic energy production, prioritizing fossil fuels and doubling down on investments in AI—a field with notoriously high energy demands.

On January 21, Trump hosted a summit with leading tech CEOs, unveiling a $500 billion private-sector infrastructure plan focused on AI development. The initiative aims to boost data center capacity and technological campuses, solidifying the U.S. as a leader in artificial intelligence.

However, the environmental costs of AI have drawn concern. AI development, particularly the training of large language models, is highly energy-intensive. Professor Pushan Dutt of INSEAD emphasized the enormous power requirements associated with such endeavors.

“The prediction is that the U.S. is going to need 35 gigawatts of power in a year just to train its large language models,” he said. “To put that into perspective, 1 gigawatt could power 876,000 households for a year.”

This reliance on vast energy resources will likely increase the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions, compounding its already significant 14.4% share of global carbon dioxide emissions recorded in 2023.

The United States’ decision to exit the Paris Agreement for the second time in less than a decade sends shockwaves across the international community. The Paris Agreement, ratified by 196 nations, serves as a global pact to combat climate change. Without U.S. participation, its credibility and effectiveness are at risk, experts say.

“From the rest of the world’s perspective, they’re going to shake their heads and stop taking the U.S. seriously,” said Professor Dutt. “This will push back climate change initiatives considerably for five years, at least, if not more.”

Dr. Vinika Rao, Executive Director of INSEAD’s Africa Initiative, noted that the U.S.’s withdrawal not only erodes international confidence but also weakens developing countries’ ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

“In 2021, the Biden administration pledged to scale up international public climate finance to developing countries four-fold, reaching over $11 billion per year by 2024,” she said. “Trump’s withdrawal means that financing will dry up, leaving developing economies with fewer resources to adopt cleaner energy measures.”

The ripple effect of the U.S. withdrawal could discourage other countries from adhering to their climate commitments. “Across the world, countries will prioritize growth and investment over cutting back emissions,” said Dutt. “This will increase the need to burn coal, amplifying greenhouse gas emissions.”

The timing of the U.S. exit is particularly concerning, as the planet breached the 1.5°C threshold for the first time in 2024, according to scientists. Exceeding this limit is expected to exacerbate weather extremes, disrupt ecosystems, and make the climate crisis increasingly unmanageable.

While Trump’s climate policies present significant challenges, some experts argue that the global context has shifted since his first term in 2017. At that time, his initial withdrawal from the Paris Agreement triggered wavering commitments from other nations. However, Helen Clarkson, CEO of Climate Group, noted that the economic and technological landscape has since evolved.

“In 2017, we saw some countries wobble, saying, ‘Maybe we won’t commit,’” Clarkson said. “But the economics have really changed. Renewable energy is now cheaper and more scalable than ever before, particularly in Asia.”

She pointed to progress in countries like India, where renewable energy initiatives are providing essential access to power for millions.

“The climate fight will be won or lost in Asia,” Clarkson said. “It’s critical that we hold the path, even without U.S. leadership.”

Despite its decision to withdraw, the U.S. will still participate in COP30, the annual U.N. climate conference, set to take place later this year in Brazil. Dr. Rao expressed skepticism about the U.S.’s level of engagement during the transition period.

“It remains to be seen how engaged the nation will be, but its presence alone will be crucial,” she said.

The U.S.’s role in international climate finance and policy discussions is vital, and its absence could create a void difficult to fill. Without its contributions, efforts to scale clean energy technologies and climate resilience in developing nations face greater uncertainty.

While Trump’s climate policies present an undeniable setback, some argue that the momentum of renewable energy and private sector commitments will continue to drive progress. In the U.S., cities, states, and corporations have increasingly adopted their own climate action plans, bypassing federal policies.

“States like California and New York have already set ambitious goals for net-zero emissions,” said Clarkson. “And globally, the private sector has stepped up significantly.”

Ultimately, experts agree that the climate crisis demands collective action, irrespective of U.S. leadership.

“The science is clear: we cannot afford to delay,” said Dutt. “Even as the U.S. takes a step back, other nations and entities must step forward to fill the void.”

As the world watches the unfolding implications of Trump’s policies, one thing is certain: the fight against climate change is far from over. Whether through grassroots efforts, international collaborations, or market-driven solutions, the global community must remain resolute in addressing this existential threat.