The potential return of Donald Trump to the White House has reignited discussions about the future of green energy investments in the US.
Trump has historically championed fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and natural gas, and is expected to prioritize policies that favor these industries. This could result in a reallocation of federal resources away from green energy toward fossil fuel development.
However, at least one expert is confident that given the entrenched nature of clean energy investments, it’s unlikely that existing projects will be dismantled.
“I believe there is enough momentum for transition efforts to continue moving ahead, even if at a slower speed,” Maryam Golnaraghi (pictured below), director of climate change and environment at the Geneva Association, told Insurance Business. “There are discussions that under Trump’s administration, there would actually be an increase in investments in carbon-removal and storage solutions, hydrogen and nuclear. We have to wait and see.”
[insert photo of Golnaraghi]
The Biden administration's policies have significantly accelerated green energy growth. Landmark legislation, such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, has provided billions of dollars in subsidies, tax credits, and grants for renewable energy projects.
“Already, the IRA has put in a significant amount of funding for projects that are breaking ground in red states, creating a lot of new jobs and economic development,” said Golnaraghi. “That's not going to go away, and these projects are really enabling the next generation of technologies.”
These initiatives have not only boosted decarbonization efforts but also spurred economic development and job creation, particularly in Republican-dominated states where many clean energy projects have been established.
The same trend, Golnaraghi pointed out, can be observed in Europe under the Green Deal Industrial Plan, where investments are strategically tied to economic growth and technological advancement.
“The reality is that a lot of these investments are not on the premise of climate change, but on the premise of economic development and job creation,” Golnaraghi said.
Market demand for clean energy solutions is also growing, driven by major corporations like Amazon and Google, which are investing in technologies such as advanced nuclear power and industrial geothermal energy. Additionally, oil and gas companies are expanding into carbon capture and storage as they adapt to the evolving energy landscape.
“I believe that this train has left the station, and pulling out of projects that are creating jobs and economic development is not going to happen, at least in the United States,” said Golnaraghi.
Instead, Golnaraghi suggested that Trump’s administration may focus on emerging technologies within the energy transition space, such as carbon removal, hydrogen, and nuclear power. These areas align with his administration’s potential emphasis on energy security and economic competitiveness.
For instance, the US has long been in competition with China for dominance in renewable energy technologies. During the Obama and Trump administrations, China’s dominance in solar manufacturing solidified, leaving the US at a disadvantage.
The Biden administration has sought to reclaim leadership through investments in advanced climate technologies like sustainable aviation fuel and green hydrogen. The Trump administration may continue these efforts, as maintaining technological superiority aligns with broader economic and national security goals.
“Technological leadership in climate tech is critical for the US to remain competitive globally,” said Golnaraghi. “In my personal view, both Germany and the United States lost the battle of renewables market dominance to China (for example, for solar) after the 2008 financial crisis.
“I think beyond current energy security issues, the US’s future economic development would require it to sustain investments to stay at the forefront of the development and commercial deployment of emerging climate tech for the energy transition and industrial decarbonization.”
One area of concern is the potential rollback of climate commitments, which could lead to a rise in climate litigation. Golnaraghi cited research by The Geneva Association saying lawsuits targeting corporations and governments for failing to meet climate pledges are increasing worldwide. A shift in US policy, she stressed, could expose domestic institutions to similar legal risks.
“If climate and environmental policies are relaxed and held back by governments, based on research we conducted on climate litigation, this could lead to a rise in climate litigation against corporations and governments that are pulling back on their promises,” said Golnaraghi.
“Those who suffer or expect to suffer loss because of climate change are already pursuing judicial remedies and looking to recover damages or fund abatement efforts. Others are using litigation as a tool to leverage more ambitious climate policy and actions or to oppose them.”
The insurance sector, as a key player in building economic, financial, and social resilience, will be watching closely. A slower transition could increase climate adaptation costs and amplify risks, making proactive risk management and innovation even more critical.
Golnaraghi concluded with a hopeful note: “The market forces, corporations, and momentum behind the energy transition are already in motion. While progress might slow, it is unlikely to reverse entirely.”
For insurers, this underscores the importance of staying ahead of emerging risks while supporting the broader ecosystem of resilience-building efforts.
“One thing is for sure,” Golnaraghi said. “In the absence of scaled, climate-mitigation efforts, the cost of climate-adaptation measures in some regions will become prohibitive due to the rising frequency and severity of extreme weather and related impacts such as sea-level rise.”
Do you have something to say about the potential impact of Trump’s administration on clean energy investments? Please share a comment below.
