Repost: The burning question

Welcome to Carbon Risk — helping investors navigate 'The Currency of Decarbonisation'! 🏭.

Carbon Risk contributes 1% of its revenue to Stripe Climate, helping to scale permanent carbon removal technologies. Thankyou to all the subscribers that support Carbon Risk.

If you enjoy this article please share it with someone and check out the Table of Contents for more insights.

New York Climate Week, the largest annual event showcasing global climate action, kicks off today. The gathering, which is held alongside the UN General Assembly, coincides with a renewed rollback in federal environmental policy in the United States.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will no longer regulate greenhouse gas emissions coming from power plants. The move guts the Clean Air Act and limits the ability of future administrations to pollution from burning coal, oil, and gas. The EPA projects that over the next decade it will result in additional 123 Mt CO2, 49 kt NOx, and 90 kt SO2 of emissions each year, as well as an increase in other harmful air pollutants such PM2.5 and mercury.

Back in July 2024, shortly after Trump's ill-fated presidential debate with Biden, I posted an article (reposted below) titled The burning question: What climate legacy will Trump 2.0 leave in his wake? As we approach the November mid-term elections it seems a good a time as any to have a half-time check-in. Unfortunately, the EPA's latest announcement only hints at the scale of the impact that the current administration will have on America's emissions.

The US is on track to reduce emissions by 27-41% below 2035 levels by 2040, according to forecasts published by the Rhodium Group. The projections, which were released in July take account of all known federal and state policies, including the EPA's latest decision to remove restrictions on power plant emissions.

In the short-term (till 2030) GHG emissions are expected to decline sharply due to the lingering impact of clean energy investments approved that claimed federal tax credits. In this case, the projections are perhaps better than expected a couple of years ago. However, as these credits expire, the various scenarios diverge and the rate of decline is expected to slow.

Rhodium's mid-point scenario indicates that the US will emit an additional 1 Gt CO2 per year by 2050 than it projected would take place under the Biden administrations climate policies. It could be much worse though. Under their current high emissions scenario (which assumes high energy prices and an expansion in LNG export facilities), US GHG emissions are projected to stabilise in the early 2030's and then begin to increase again as we approach 2040.

US citizens are already bearing the cost of climate inaction, and the toll is likely to rise over the next decade. A recent paper from the Brookings Institution found that the average household bears an annual cost of between $400 and $900, mainly through higher insurance costs and energy bills. The impact is heavily skewed with lower income households and certain regions vulnerable to extreme weather typically facing the highest costs.

The rollbacks have a short-term human cost too. The increase in air pollution - particularly NOx, SO2, and PM2.5 - is likely to lead to an increase in healthcare costs. Energy Innovation estimated that consumers will incur an additional $43 billion in health costs over the period 2026-2040 due to the increase in air pollution.

This update on Trump's climate legacy clearly focuses on the domestic impact thus far. The global impact may turn out to be ever greater, but for now at least that will have to wait. A topic for another article.

Donald Trump’s chances of regaining the keys to the White House have surged since the presidential debate against Joe Biden. The implied probability of a second Trump term reached a high of 64% at one point, according to the Betfair exchange. It has since retreated to below 60%.

The potential impact of Trump 2.0 on climate policy has been a talking point for several months. However, in light of the recent surge in his chances of becoming president again, it’s worth revisiting some of policies most likely to see the chop and the potential impact on emissions in both the US and the rest of the world (see Climate policy uncertainty is on the rise).

Recall that during the his first term as president, Trump is estimated to have rolled back more than 100 environmental policies. Analysis by Rhodium estimated that had Trump remained in power, the rollback of domestic US regulations alone would have potentially added 1.8 Gt CO2e into the atmosphere by 2035.

Putting aside the dismantling of domestic environmental regulations, Trump’s most notable (read notorious) move was announcing the US withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement. It took three years to actually leave, but in doing so, the US became the first (and only) nation to formally withdraw from the climate accord.

Although the US subsequently re-joined the accord under Biden the chances of Trump having a change of heart towards global climate policies appears slim. Labelling the Paris Agreement as “a rip off of the United States” during the TV debate with Biden, it will come as no surprise that Trump is likely to pull the US out of the climate accord for a second time.

This time Trump might go even further and make it much more difficult for subsequent administrations to re-join. A recent article in Politico highlights the possibility that Trump might remove the US from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This is the framework that underpins global climate talks:1

“Doing so would effectively end U.S. participation in global climate talks, obliterating international cooperation when nations are still far off track from goals to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius since the pre-industrial era.

A U.S. departure would impede the UNFCCC’s operations, as the U.S. is a major funder of the treaty. It also could erect more significant hurdles for a future president to rejoin the Paris climate agreement.

Leaving the UNFCCC, which also would take one year, would also excuse the U.S. from contributing to funding streams aimed at helping developing countries reduce their emissions and respond to the effects of climate change.”

The decision by the US to leave the climate accord in 2016 led to a malaise in global climate negotiations. But the impact was arguably offset to some extent by the strength of commitment elsewhere in the world, and in particular Europe. With the macro and political backdrop now much more hostile to ambitious climate policies, the threat to progressive global climate talks is much greater.