4 value propositions for climate action under Trump

There’s no mincing words: The forthcoming transition of United States presidential administrations is sending shockwaves through the climate advocacy community. 

Many say that it highlights an almost definitive exponential increase in emissions. Carbon Brief suggests an additional 4 billion tons of emissions by 2030; the MIT technology review asserts this is an emissions trajectory we cannot afford. This would seem alarmist, except that the rhetoric has been matched with conservatives in the incoming administration calling climate change a “hoax” and claiming that climate scientists “have no idea what’s going to happen.” 

But even if the polarizing language seems to leave little room for discussion, an immediate urgency for climate adaptation, investing in resilience to the impacts of climate change amidst increasing disasters, is an area of potential consensus in a divided landscape. Finding that consensus is literally a matter of life or death in the face of increasing disasters. 

We believe there are areas of potential consensus, and at least four value propositions for climate adaptation action that the incoming administration might find attractive.

First, there is a clear case for proactive federal investment in disaster preparedness and climate adaptation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently reported that 2024 is on track to be one of the most costly years for climate-related damages, with almost two dozen billion-dollar disasters so far. The U.S. has sustained 400 separate weather and climate disasters since 1980 in which overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion in today's dollars. 

The total cost of these 400 events approaches $3 trillion. There is work to be done to carefully and convincingly link the data to climate change, but these numbers should be compelling apolitically to any kind of administration.

Further, although many Republican governors have turned back money designated for climate mitigation, they have been moving forward with adaptation projects in disaster-battered states like Florida, as well as with climate-ready workforce upskilling efforts in Texas and Ohio. This shows a willingness to at least acknowledge the increasing costs resulting from disasters and creates opportunities for climate adaptation strategies designed to prevent major economic losses.

Second, with immigration being a hot topic during the campaign, it bears mentioning that climate change is a major driver of migrants to our border. The Trump administration is likely to make illegal immigration a top priority. And while border security will be an early topic of action, climate-induced displacement (climate migration) should be addressed as well.

Latin America is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change, and there will be increases in cross-border migration.  The Migration Policy Institute estimates that there will be as many as 1.2 billion climate migrants by 2050. 

A key priority should be reducing the shocks that drive migration through foreign aid. Cooperation and partnerships with other countries, such as Mexico, can also help to keep people safely where they are. Shaping migration dynamics before it reaches the U.S. is a strategy that will reduce the increasing pressures that end up at our borders.

The incoming administration can also address climate from a national security perspective. Numerous national security reports have highlighted the impacts of climate change on national security going back nearly a decade. These reports, ranging from National Intelligence Estimates to Department of Defense Climate Risks Analysis, highlight direct impacts on U.S. military bases and assets domestically and abroad, increased state destabilization from climate-change pressures (e.g. crop failures) leading to increased conflict, and an increase in humanitarian related missions. There are also changes to the way the military will need to train and operate under different climatic conditions.  

The Council on Strategic Risks makes clear that food crises and climate shocks threaten national security; it will be important to continue to build on Defense Department investments in monitoring and responding to food insecurity within the context of climate change. 

International security leadership will be just as important as domestic national security. Through agencies like USAID, the U.S. supports water, land conservation projects and early warning systems in developing countries. The U.S. Agency for International Development’s Famine Early Warning Systems Network will also help in both the national security and immigration policy areas in supporting early action to prevent broader destabilizing events.

Finally, the global economy and markets are rapidly shifting towards renewable energy and low-carbon technologies that also have resilience benefits, such as renewable energy and energy storage. China is a leader in solar panel and battery production. If the U.S. is to continue in the battle of global clean technology supply chains and green exports, it will gain a competitive edge through investments in renewable energy production. 

U.S. industries must also adapt to the imposition of carbon tariffs or standards on imports; expanding exports of renewable technologies requires climate-focused innovation and leadership. 

The financial landscape also demands the U.S. to maintain climate leadership — particularly related to material and physical climate risk. This is also the case for continued climate diplomacy; removing the U.S. from global climate venues will remove the United States from the discussions where the nature of hundreds of billions of dollars of investments are being determined.

We expect that there will be many setbacks in climate action over the next four years, but it is imperative that work continues towards climate adaptation where there is an opening for consensus. The economic case for disaster preparedness is increasingly self-evident, immigration pressures will only grow more complex with climate pressures, national security cannot be separated from climate security, and investing in renewable energy is imperative to continue competing on the global stage. 

With these areas of potential agreement, momentum can be built in areas where progress is possible to build resilience in a warming world.

Amy Campbell is a Fulbright Scholar in the Climate and Society Program at the Columbia Climate School at Columbia University. Jeff Schlegelmilch is director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at the Columbia Climate School, Columbia University and author of “Rethinking Readiness: A Brief Guide to 21st Century Megadisasters.”