Experts warn that Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election could “slam the brakes on the transition to green energy” and jeopardise international efforts to tackle climate change, Agence France-Presse reports. The US retreating from climate diplomacy “could seriously undermine global action to cut fossil fuel reliance” and potentially give other major emitters an “excuse” to scale back their own decarbonisation plans, it explains. The Financial Times says the election result is “set to cast a pall over the UN COP29 summit next week”. The Trump campaign said the incoming president would withdraw the US from the 2015 Paris Agreement, as Trump did during his first term as president, the newspaper adds. Nations are set to agree on a new global climate finance goal at COP29, and the US “is viewed as crucial to that goal”, given its wealth and critical role in international finance institutions, the newspaper explains. Despite the negativity, the newspaper adds that “leaders of the historic climate agreement struck in Paris said they believed the momentum behind decarbonisation would not be halted”. Similarly NPR reports that analysts and activists say a second Trump administration will not be able to stop the US’ transition to low-carbon energy, as “costs for a lot of those technologies are falling fast”. Politico’s outlook is more negative, noting that “any slowdown from the world’s second-largest emitter – itself a major driver of the global shift to clean energy – is bound to throw a wrench into global climate efforts”. Trump’s potential impact on international climate action poses a “grave threat to the planet”, the Guardian adds. BBC News explains that, while climate was not a major feature of the election campaign, Trump’s “likely actions in office this time could be far more significant” than his first term. Last time, the US was only out of the Paris Agreement for a few months, but now Trump would only have to wait a year to leave, giving him “three years to chart his own course without any need to report to the UN or be bound by its rules”.

Trump is a “climate sceptic” who has promised to encourage the production of fossil fuels and scale back outgoing president Joe Biden’s spending on the “green economy”, Climate Home News explains. The Washington Post notes that “while energy was not a focal point of a presidential campaign consumed by immigration, abortion and the future of democracy, it is a policy area where presidents have the authority to make sweeping changes”. Trump’s plans for the fossil-fuel industry include rolling back restrictions on methane emissions and cancelling Biden’s pause on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, it adds. The New York Times says Trump’s “zeal to repeal” Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which has poured money into clean-energy projects and electric vehicles, will “quickly face a political test”. It explains that “roughly 80% of the money spent so far has flowed to Republican congressional districts. Axios points to another way that Trump could harm US climate action, by breaking up key departments such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and “eroding federal climate research and forecasting”. California’s clean air rules, including a ban on new fossil fuel-powered car sales by 2035, are under threat because they “have not been approved by the Biden administration and now face outright rejection by the incoming Trump administration”, according to the Los Angeles Times. Meanwhile, Inside Climate News reports that control of the Senate has also been flipped from the Democrats to Trump’s Republican party, making the prospect of future climate legislation in Congress “much darker”. It adds that this puts the IRA on “newly uncertain ground”. E&E News says even if Democrats retake the House, an outcome that may not be known for days or weeks, their climate gains under Biden could be in “major peril”. It points to comments made by Trump in a victory speech hinting at his plans to expand oil drilling – telling the audience “we have more liquid gold than any country in the world”.

In other coverage of Trump’s victory, BusinessGreen has a piece consisting of responses to the election outcome from key figures in the climate community, and the Press Association has an article about climate campaigners reacting with “dismay”. Scientists around the world have expressed “disappointment and alarm” about a second Trump term, according to Nature. The article points to a survey it conducted of scientists that suggests most favoured Trump’s Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, due to concerns that included climate change. After the Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese struck “major clean energy agreements” with Biden’s government, the Daily Mail says. Albanese’s energy plans “could suffer a crippling blow after Trump’s US election win”. Finally, the Daily Telegraph reports that, in response to Trump’s victory, Just Stop Oil activists have targeted the US embassy in London, spraying orange paint on its walls.

Shares of the electric-car company Tesla soared by 14% following Trump’s victory – an outcome that had been “strongly backed” by the firm’s chief executive Elon Musk in the closing months of the election race, the Associated Press reports. It adds that shares of rival electric-vehicle makers “tumbled”, and says Tesla is set to prosper as the threat of “diminished subsidies for alternative energy and electric vehicles” is more likely to harm smaller competitors. After throwing his support behind Trump, Musk has “a direct line to the White House that he may be able to use to bend policy in ways that could benefit Tesla”, the New York Times says. Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that wind-farm developers have seen billions of dollars wiped from their stock market value, after Trump criticised wind turbines on the campaign trail. Reuters says that clean-energy companies across Europe, including Orsted and Vestas, have seen their shares “plummet”. It notes that Trump has “vowed to scrap offshore wind projects through an executive order on his first day in office”, as well as rolling back Biden-era climate policies such as the IRA. The Times describes the IRA as “one of the most widely expected casualties of a second Trump presidency”. Another Reuters story explains that “investor fears of a reversal under Trump sent clean-energy stocks down sharply on Wednesday”. However, it says that while a Trump presidency will mean more support for the oil-and-gas industry, it is “unlikely to dramatically slow the US renewable energy boom”. Oil futures climbed as traders “weighed the likely impact” of Trump, who is “expected to be more positive toward the nation’s oil producers”, Bloomberg reports. Bloomberg also runs through some of the potential impacts of Trump’s victory on different sectors, including electric vehicles, fossil fuels and power plants. 

Asia is “bracing for Donald Trump’s return to the White House” following his threats to “inflict sweeping tariffs on China”, the Financial Times reports, adding that possible moves from Trump could “hit China’s faltering economy and send shockwaves through global supply chains”. The newspaper adds that tariffs on cars imported from Mexico, which is becoming a major manufacturing base for Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), could be “in excess of 100%”, with Vietnam also under threat from stricter measures. Bloomberg reports that if Trump “follows through on his tariff threats”, the Chinese government will “need to do much more” to help its economy, which needs exports of products like EVs and batteries to help ease the country’s “deflationary pressure and property woes”. Industry news outlet BJX News says that “some analysts believe that Trump’s victory may restart high tariffs on Chinese solar products…further compress[ing] the profit margins of Chinese solar companies”. Trump’s victory is “likely to prompt” China to increase the value of its “long-awaited fiscal stimulus package” to “offset the impact of any potential tariffs”, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports. Another SCMP report says “Beijing could ramp up export restrictions” of rare earths if trade tensions with the US increase. An editorial in the state-run newspaper China Daily argues that Trump’s election will provide “new opportunities” for the US to “strengthen dialogue” with China to “handle” political differences and adopt a “pragmatic approach” to challenges like climate change.

Meanwhile, China has “lodged a request” that the agenda for the forthcoming COP29 summit includes “discussion of unilateral restrictive trade measures”, in a move “directed squarely” at the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), the New York Times reports. Reuters says “fears of a widening tariff war between China and other major exporting nations” means China is trying to preserve its relationship with the EU “even as trade talks over electric vehicles stall”. The state-supporting Global Times publishes an article saying the EU must “consider the potential measures that China may employ” if it strengthens its actions against Chinese EV imports. Shanghai-based newspaper the Paper quotes Xia Yingxian, head of the climate change department at the ministry of ecology and environment (MEE), telling a press conference that China believes COP29 should be “enabling COP” by “removing factors that currently disable climate action” and responding to “long-standing, overlooked demands from developing countries”. China Daily covers the same press conference, saying that, according to the MEE, China has signed 53 agreements with 42 countries on south-south climate cooperation, showing its “commitment”. Xia also told reporters that China is currently developing a “new round” of its international climate pledges for 2035, which it will submit “in due course in 2025”, the Paper says.

It is “virtually certain” that 2024 will be the world’s warmest on record, according to projections by the European Copernicus Climate Change Service, BBC News reports. The article notes that the year has been “punctuated by intense heatwaves and deadly storms”. It says the high temperatures are primarily due to human-caused climate change, with smaller contributions from natural effects such as the El Niño weather pattern. New Scientist adds that 2024 is also “almost certain” to become the first year on record when average temperatures exceed 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. This would be a symbolic moment, as it would breach the warming threshold set by the Paris Agreement, the article says. [As Carbon Brief has previously explained, a single year above 1.5C would not be the same as breaching the Paris Agreement’s limit as that refers to long-term warming.] The Washington Post says this year is expected to be more than 1.55C above the pre-industrial average and “the only way for 2024 to not be the warmes…is if the average temperature anomaly dropped to almost zero for the remainder of the year – which is highly unlikely”.

Fast-moving fires have been triggered across California as the state was struck by powerful winds that “complicated firefighting efforts, necessitated power shutoffs and raised the danger for more ignitions”, the Guardian reports. The newspaper explains that while strong autumn winds are common in California, the region was “primed to burn” due to low humidity and hillsides coated in dead and dying vegetation that was “cooked in summer heatwaves”. Forecasters warned earlier this week that the situation appeared similar to the conditions responsible for “some of the worst fires in southern California history”, CNN reports.

Elsewhere, the Associated Press reports that Cuba has been “left reeling” after Hurricane Rafael – a category 3 hurricane – knocked out the country’s power grid. The article explains that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that the 2024 hurricane season was likely to be well above average, with between 17 and 25 named storms expected. Inside Climate News reports on how people in Florida cast their votes in the US election “amid wind and flood damage” from the recent hurricanes Milton and Helene. Meanwhile, CNN reports that at least three people have been killed in Missouri, including two poll workers, by flooding caused by heavy rains.

An article in the Conversation outlines new research that shows how, from 2000 to 2020, extreme weather may have cost small-island states a total of $141bn. The authors say that the new climate finance goal set to be agreed at the COP29 summit should include a target for “loss and damage” finance to address such events. Finally, the Times has an article about the new climate finance goal, noting that negotiations over it “will be overshadowed by fears that Donald Trump will reverse the US’s emissions-cutting efforts and withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement”.

Robinson Meyer, the editor of Heatmap, has an article laying out the likely moves that Donald Trump will take in the sphere of climate and energy when he begins his second term as US president. He points out that, this time around, Trump is operating in a very different landscape to his first term. The US has “a real climate law on its books”, in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and climate policies will have more economic significance because “China has seized a commanding lead in many of the most important zero-carbon technologies”. Meyer says that while some actions, such as withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, are “easy to predict”, Trump’s threats to repeal the IRA are less clear-cut. “The climate law, like the Affordable Care Act before it, is meant to protect itself from repeal by tying itself to local economies across the country,” he explains. Moreover, he says that “for every step back that Trump takes on climate policy, China will step forward and take more of a global leadership role”. The Times’ chief business commentator, Alistair Osbourne, notes that many of the benefits of the IRA have fallen in Republican states, meaning pausing the clean energy transition would harm the people who voted for Trump. In its Lex column, the Financial Times says the “ill wind” of Trump’s victory will undermine the European wind energy sector’s efforts to “fix its operations following the last tornado, the result of huge cost inflation and higher financing costs”.

Elsewhere, a Guardian editorial describes Trump’s victory as “a bleak day for America and the world”. It says that experts think Trump’s pledge to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and boost fossil fuels “would end all hope of keeping global heating to below 1.5C”. An Economist editorial notes that “global initiatives, from tackling climate change to arms control, have just got harder”. A Daily Mirror editorial concurs, adding that “once again, [Trump] is likely to sabotage international action to tackle climate change”. In its editorial, the Times says: “Trumpism, a hybrid populist platform promising lower taxes and overall government spending combined with climate scepticism and protectionism to safeguard domestic production and jobs, is for now the dominant ideology in the world’s most consequential nation.” In its editorial, the Daily Mail considers the implications of Trump’s victory for the UK. It says UK prime minister Keir Starmer’s “headlong dash for net-zero are already out of step with US policy”, and warns that a “rift with Mr Trump could damage Britain’s economy and security”. The climate-sceptic Sunday Telegraph editor Allister Heath has an article in the Daily Telegraph stating that Trump’s desire to quit the Paris Agreement exposes “the net-zero project as a sham, ignored by emerging markets and the world’s largest economy alike”.

In other reaction, BusinessGreen editor James Murray writes in a blog post that “the implications [of Trump’s victory] for climate action and the green economy are bleak”. He urges the need to maintain a global focus on reaching net-zero emissions, adding: “The Trump presidency will necessitate a shift in strategy – more focus on climate adaptation, increased investment in nascent carbon removal projects, a bigger role for the green business community, closer ties between those liberal democracies still committed to decarbonisation and the emerging economic powerhouses that will determine whether the world sees 2C or 3C of warming.” Writing on Medium, climate diplomacy specialist Alex Scott, from the thinktank ECCO, asks “what does a Trump win mean for COP29?”. She says that while a Trump government is unlikely to contribute much climate finance: “That’s a problem but it’s not insurmountable. A finance deal won’t only hinge on the US, which has long been a laggard under Republican and Democrat administrations alike.” She adds that “other countries need to step up. That was true before and it’s true now”. An editorial in Indian publication Carbon Copy points out that “other economies plan to pursue their own climate agendas, even if the US does the opposite”, adding that “many countries have confirmed they will continue climate action”. It states that: “If the US pulls out of the Paris Agreement along with other climate commitments, the mantle for climate leadership could go to China.” Finally, in his opinion column for Bloomberg, former banker Liam Denning says Trump may not have some of the profound impacts on energy that are being predicted, noting that the sector is “beholden to the more powerful currents of price and profit”.

Juan Bordera, a climate journalist and an independent MP for Compromís in the Valencian parliament, has written a piece for the Guardian about the recent devastating flooding in the Spanish region of Valencia. Along with other left-wing politicians, Bordera says that he had warned the regional government about the threat of flooding in the Mediterranean region and tried to elevate the issue in local politics. “There is a debate in Spain about who or what is to blame: bad political management or the climate crisis. But this question misses the point. In reality, the two are interconnected,” Bordera says. He suggests that the events are a consequence of political authorities ignoring the advice of experts and opposition political figures, adding that this is all exacerbated by climate change. He concludes: “I hope that across Spain and Europe we are all becoming increasingly aware of the risks facing countries that are threatened by serious droughts and increasingly extreme floods, desertification and forest fires.”

The “dominant” driver of drought in the western US shifted from lack of precipitation to rising temperatures at the start of this century, according to a study. Analysing observations and climate model simulations, the researchers find that the change in drought drivers since around 2000 “has led to increased drought severity and coverage”. An “unprecedented” drought in the western US over 2020-22 “exemplifies” this change, the researchers note. The study’s models forecast that these kinds of droughts – which currently take place around once every thousand years – could happen once every 60 years by the middle of this century. The researchers conclude that the change in drought drivers “cannot be explained by natural climate variability” and is “mainly” from human-caused warming.