Introduction
Shortly after his inauguration, President Donald Trump announced a series of climate measures with major ramifications: he passed an order to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and dismantled a host of federal government climate action measures. Other like-minded leaders are poised to take similarly drastic steps. McCullock and commentators have dissected the implications of current US government climate policy. In this piece, we highlight what the policy means for low- and middle-income countries and what research, including by Clean Energy for Development: A Call to Action (“CEDCA”), can do to mitigate the effects.
Effects of US climate policy on low-and middle-income countries
Many LMICs aleardy face multiple injustices, including climate injustice. They bear the brunt of the climate crisis caused by large polluters. While the shift from fossil fuels to clean energy offers a promising response to the climate crisis and opportunities for development, there has been considerable resistance to this transition. In October 2024, we debated the roots and nature of this resistance, which often emerges not from a fundamental dismissal of the climate crisis, but from the problematic delivery of renewable energy programmes. Large green energy projects often overwhelm farmlands, evict communities, and destroy landscapes. Resistance also arises from the failure to support workers and communities dependent on fossil fuel industries, who are often unprepared or unsupported in the shift to new sectors.
LMICs already face a disproportionate and growing burden of financing clean energy transitions. McKinsey estimates that a global investment of $3.5 trillion USD per year will be required over the next 30 years. Generating the requisite investment is a mammoth task for rich and developed countries, but LMICs face the dual challenge of scaling up clean energy generation while simultaneously addressing electricity deficits and promoting socio-economic development. Despite contributing the least to the climate crisis, LMICs are expected to shoulder high transition costs.
What happened post 20th January 2025?
The current U.S. climate stance is more alarming than previous procedural or regulatory rollbacks – it is founded on the premise that climate change is a “scam” or “sham” and on doubts on the science itself. Some commentators war that this could reverse the widely accepted narrative about climate change and significantly dent momentum towards climate action.
The current US administration’s reasons for reversing its commitment to climate action are that the international agreements and initiatives do not reflect US values; and agreements steer US taxpayer money to countries that do not require or merit financial assistance. It is not made clear how US values differ from those of the rest of the world, but whether its stance stems primarily from doubting the science or from hesitancy to commit taxpayer money, the risks are high for slowing climate change. The US is one of the biggest polluters, and reversing its commitment could mean worsening the climate crisis. It stifles the growing renewable energy industry in the US and paves the way for further pollution. Second, the US has been the major contributor to climate finance globally, so its withdrawal undermines worldwide efforts.
What can be done?
Climate action needs to be reinvigorated, with nuanced and context specific actions. First, political parties need to seek consensus on long term and intergenerational matters such as climate change, rather than focusing on divisive short term electoral gains.
Second, global leadership and governance of climate action need to be enhanced, with active participation coming from the global south.
Third, science needs to diagnose the current threat and its deep causes and proactively come up with solutions. Politicians and voters need clear information about the climate crisis and what public action is required. The scientific response also needs to address genuine opposition to clean energy, emanating from faulty processes, and come up with approaches to address project design and implementation faults.
Finally, social movements in support of climate action can play a part. This may include formal and informal actions, similar to successful Latin America-based campaigns for environmental justice, where communities actively participate in climate movements that call, for example, for climate reparations—paving the way for a fairer transition.
The Clean Energy for Development: A Call to Action (“CEDCA”) research initiative generates evidence to inform public policy reforms and innovations in support of a transformative clean energy transition where women and youth can play a key role in greening energy through micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs).
Key contacts
