Donald Trump’s return to the White House has rightfully triggered alarm bells from those with even a modicum of care for the health of the planet. It was during Trump’s first term that my personal engagement with both environmentalism and politics more broadly, grew. I remember firsthand the dismay as he withdrew from the Paris Climate accords, commissioned the Keystone XL pipeline and denounced clean energy even if I didn’t fully understand the reasons why. These first term regressions in environmental policy, combined with his second term goals of repealing the progress made in his absence have left many without hope for the next four years of ecological and environmental progress. I want to offer a light at the end of the tunnel, without at all attempting to downplay the very real challenge of a second Trump term to environmental progress. Environmental damage is not binary – each fraction of a degree and acre of land counts for something. With this in mind, I hope to provide enough potential for good news to energise the reader (and myself) for the upcoming battles of the next four years.

My foundations for hope will take three angles, the first of which will focus on the US itself, which has the bleakest outlook. Nonetheless, it isn’t appropriate to completely cede domestic US policy to the whims of the oil industry simply because their preferred candidate resides in the White House. Trump’s grand promises to retract climate action over the past four years may yet meet considerable internal and structural resistance. For instance, his own lawmakers may be unwilling to repeal existing climate legislation. However imperfect, much of the Biden administration’s subsidies for clean energy, environmental protection and electric vehicles was, and will continue to be, spent in Republican districts. With the economy ranking so highly on many voters’ minds, their elected representatives may be reluctant to deny the influx of money whatever the source.

Environmental health extends past carbon emissions, with habitat preservation and biodiversity also in dire need of attention, though less publicised. Here, Trump’s first term was equally damaging, with the downgrading of many previously protected habitats. Nonetheless, looking forward, we might take hope from the governorship of the ideologically similar Ron DeSantis. In spite of his outright climate denialism, Florida’s governor still invested record amounts into the preservation of the state’s wetlands – spending $1.5 billion in 2023 and $6.5 billion cumulatively since 2019. It would be false to say DeSantis is any sort of trailblazer in biodiversity conservation, he is still acting in his own self-interest as wetlands are culturally popular and an effective flood barrier. Still, if he can make some positive environmental change, there is hope for Trump.

“If a Ron DeSantis can make some positive environmental change, there is hope for Trump”

There is no doubt that international cooperation on climate change and biodiversity will become more challenging. The US represents 15% of global emissions, which is a hefty chunk of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere, but not a critical mass. The EU’s own emissions have fallen 8% in 2023, while the UK phased out coal for energy production just this year. China has become a world leader on solar panels, quietly building more in 2023 than the US has in its lifetime, bringing down the cost of construction globally, and promoting green energy. Rainforest destruction in Brazil is slowing, due to targeted political intervention. Political, top-down changes in the rest of the world will not cease simply because of America’s actions. Despite its outsized impact on the global state of affairs, damage can still be controlled without America on board.

Perhaps the most promising news going forward is that many of the environmentally positive actions that began with government initiatives are now being advocated by the private sector. Once again, this should not be viewed uncritically, but it is increasingly accepted that practices such as clean energy are worthwhile investments. More money is now globally spent on renewables than fossil fuels, and renewables are generally cheaper as a result. The clean energy industry has now grown arms and legs and used them to move away from the influence of any one government. Biodiversity and ecosystem protection is also beginning to garner the same approach. Though in an embryonic phase, private companies have shown willingness to voluntarily pay to preserve critical parts of ecosystems, which are often of economic value. Wetlands clean water, pollinators help crops and tourists visit biodiverse areas, generating income. The other upside of voluntary investments is it shows the power of public opinion, protesting and shaming campaigns, which remain well within our power regardless of the government.

“Actors not classically associated with environmentalism are producing outcomes with some ecological upside”

A theme is beginning to emerge, where actors not classically associated with environmentalism are producing outcomes with some ecological upside. Why? The short answer is the increasing realisation that a functioning global ecology is essential to not only life as we know it, but also the economic growth of many companies and countries. As natural systems become rarer, their relative value increases. This tipping point is a key nucleus of hope to bear in mind moving forward from a pragmatic perspective. If selfish actions can be trusted to at least minimise the impacts of environmental destruction, this is a positive thing. This selfishness should not be confused with virtue, and we certainly shouldn’t substitute it for more direct advocacy. Yet, in the face of such terrible political upheaval, comfort can be sought in the knowledge that ecological action is more robust than we might think.

I want to reiterate that I am not endorsing Trump as an environmentalist or suggesting any of these solutions are ideal. There are serious fights on the table across the world over the next four years, and the most likely outcome is that things will get worse by many tangible ecological metrics. That said, the outlook is not outright apocalyptic. Relative to the bar at subterranean depths, there are still positives to bear in mind. Global ecosystem protection and climate action are beginning to be seen as justifying themselves for the benefits they provide to humanity in the eyes of often selfish decision makers. While we certainly shouldn’t drop the ethical case for ecologically minded action, this represents another arrow in the quiver of those fighting for the planet. What I have discussed today may be imperfect and still leaves problems to address, but is hopefully enough of a spark to ignite a hopeful fire across the next four years and beyond.