In the Trump era, we need to rethink climate leadership

Ashfaq Zaman argues that the Global South understands climate change better than anyone because they have to live with it.

Trump’s election victory was met by groans by environmentalists across the globe. Many fear that Trump’s inevitable withdrawal from climate talks will leave a ‘vacuum of leadership’. Yet we have to ask; even with a Kamala Harris victory, would the picture really have been much different? 

Trump’s presidency will not mark the end of America’s climate leadership. That’s because it never really began. 

For climate action to be sustainable, it cannot be dependent on the whims of a handful of nations. Instead, it must be driven by that critical mass of nations who exist at the forefront of climate breakdown. The world’s biggest polluters will not lead. Instead, they need to be led. 

Trump’s climate intentions have been made clear. He will likely pull America out of the Paris Agreement and will double down on oil and gas under the three word slogan “drill baby drill”. 

America will step back from any role that comes close to being called ‘climate leadership’. However, let’s take a step back for the moment and ask; was America ever really considered a ‘climate leader’ in the first place? 

Make no mistake, America is one of the countries most responsible for climate change. As of 2021, the United States emitted approximately 5.0 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂), accounting for about 14% of global CO₂ emissions. The 46 Least Developed Countries which represent about 14% of the world's population, collectively contributed only about 1.1% of global CO₂ emissions in 2019. 

Similarly, some studies suggest that the US has inflicted nearly $2 trillion of damage onto other countries. 

Of course, the US is not alone. The UK too has postured under the equally vague label ‘climate leader’. It may point to the fact that it has cut its Greenhouse gas emissions by 50% since 1980. The truth is that this is nothing more than an accounting error. British carbon consumption has not decreased, only its domestic emissions. The same, carbon-intensive products it used to export are now imported. Deindustrialisation is not the same as decarbonisation. 

For many around the world, COP climate conferences are increasingly viewed as ‘talking shops’, as nothing more than platforms for wealthy nations to signal their faux virtues. Perhaps if we want to rebuild faith in climate action, we need to stop pretending that the biggest polluters are really the solution? 

Climate action is, by definition, unsustainable if it could be undermined by one election. 

My home country of Bangladesh is one of the most climate-vulnerable nations on earth. Millions of Bangladeshi’s find themselves at the front line of climate change. 

As a result, we have become experts at adapting to climate change on a tight budget. While top-down investment and planning from the government is crucial, some of the best climate adaptation solutions are driven from the bottom-up. This approach has been recognized in Professor Muhammad Yunus’s book “A World of Three Zeroes”, which imagines an economic system that could deliver no net carbon emissions, poverty or unemployment. 

Our citizens have had to innovate on a frugal budget. Take Bangladesh’s ‘floating gardens’. Communities have fashioned these flood-proof gardens from bamboo, and ensure that they can grow food, even through periods of drought. Communities have learnt to build homes and pharmacies on stilts. Schools have been designed to double up as cyclone shelters.  They have developed early warning systems that are disseminated through text messages and radio. Sometimes it isn’t just money that’s needed. It’s experience. 

In reality, it is nations like mine that paint a picture of what true ‘climate leadership’ looks like. Instead of looking to the polluters for leadership, we should look to those who have real experience in climate adaptation and resilience. 

Bangladesh is not alone in this. Many nations across the Global South face similar challenges, and have come up with similar solutions. Take Peru and Chile’s fog nets. In coastal areas where water is increasingly scarce, farmers have set up nets that absorb water from fog. This water then collects and drips down into collection troughs, therefore providing a clean and sustainable source of water. 

Equally, in the Andes and Guatemala, farmers have taken to storing and sharing traditional seeds that have evolved in that specific climatic context. This not only makes their crops resilient, this is essential for preserving the genetic diversity in our food supply. This is especially crucial when around 95% of the energy we get from food comes from only around 30 different kinds of crops. 

These are the nations that are leading in climate adaptation and resilience, regardless of what G7 members say. 

This has been proven time and time again. Bhutan has become the first country to become carbon-negative. The ‘High Ambition Coalition’, led by the Marshall Islands, made significant structural changes to the final Paris Agreement text. At Cop 26 in Glasgow, it was the small-island nation of Barbados and Tuvalu who were able to finally push through the ‘Loss and Adaptation fund’ commitment. Yet again, we see the change is affected by those who are forced to live on the sharp end of climate change. 

Of course, it all boils down to money. Nations like China, the US and the UK have the finances needed to fund the necessary climate adaptation and mitigation measures needed. This endows them with power over the negotiations. Yet we mustn’t underestimate just how powerful a unified voice across the most climate-vulnerable regions could be. 

Indeed, even though richer countries could provide climate finance, that doesn’t mean they do. These nations consistently fall short of the funding requirements set at COP 27 for the Loss and Adaptation fund. Increasingly, climate finance comes from the private sector, through carbon market investments. 

Partnerships between the private sector and climate-vulnerable nations could provide a new, more realistic and more effective form of climate leadership. Take, for example, organisations like BRAC and Grameen Bank. They have introduced microfinance schemes tailored for climate adaptation, allowing people in vulnerable areas to access funds for climate-resilient farming, small-scale renewable energy projects, and building resilient homes. This financial support helps families rebuild and adapt after climate disasters. 

Similarly, Google had previously collaborated with the Bangladeshi government to provide AI-powered flood forecasting systems. This kind of public-private partnerships provide a promising blueprint. Climate-vulnerable nations have front-line experience, while multi-national tech firms have the resources and technological infrastructure needed to design for real climate resilience. 

The Global South understands climate change better than anyone because they have to live with it. The private sector has the capital (and increasingly the will) to invest in climate adaptation and mitigation. 

Trump coming to power isn’t a blow to climate leadership. It’s a reminder that the biggest polluters should never have been considered climate leaders in the first place. 

In countries like Bangladesh, climate action happens from the bottom up. It’s time that global climate action worked in the same way too.

Ashfaq Zaman, International Affairs expert and founder of the Dhaka Forum.

Photo by Alamin Zulfar