It's a sad day for Americans who care about and believe in the science of climate change. Donald Trump, who has promised everything from rolling back the IRA to shuttering the National Weather Service and dismantling the EPA, will be the 47th president of the United States come January.

His climate-gutting threats and policies in Project 2025, will be bolstered by a Republican majority in the Senate and possibly a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, though the races there are still too close to call at the time of this writing.

Nevertheless, there were a few bright spots that emerged from Tuesday’s election results in statewide races across the country.

The Silver(ish) Lining of a Trump Presidency’s Impact on Climate

As The New York Times pointed out in a story this week, even though Trump’s rhetoric includes ramping up oil production and upending EV benefits and build out, and indicates that he will gut climate programs, the money that’s flowed into the economy for green projects could potentially prove otherwise. According to the reporting, around 80% of the money from the $390 billion IRA bill has flowed to Republican Congressional districts, and many states enshrined climate action into their laws.

Todd Stern, former President Barack Obama’s chief climate negotiator, underlined this point in an interview with Climate Home News following the results of the election. He said that if Trump blocks efforts to cut US emissions, it “will be very disappointing – to put it mildly.” He added, “the machine is moving – the wheels that are spinning in all elements of clean technology are not going to stop,” noting that it's likely that Trump won't be able to roll back the IRA and other green initiatives because most of the money has gone to states with Republican Congress members and Governors who are “not going to want those things to be undermined because of jobs and employment.” As a result, states will more than likely play a larger role in fighting climate change.

Voters also enshrined a small handful of climate-positive measures across the country. For example, in Washington State, voters upheld a law to force polluters to cap their fossil fuel emissions. Emitters will pay for large-scale carbon emissions generation, and the money will go to programs that address or deal with climate change, including funding things like electric ferries, free transit access for young people, and restoration of rivers for salmon killed by drought, according to the New York Times.

In California, which has long been a leader in the fight against climate change, voters approved a $10 billion climate bond with $475 million going to offshore wind, and $325 milion dedicated to grid upgrades. California will spend approximately $400 million annually over 40 years to repay the bond, according to S&P Global. Rhode Island also approved more than $53 million in green bonds.

As the New York Times points out, this underlines our earlier point that the power to legislate and minimize climate change is shifting to the states as “bulwark[s] against federal efforts to undo climate policy.” This is markedly similar to the shift we’ve already seen in the heated abortion fight as more states enshrine women’s rights in their state constitutions.

Additionally, as NPR points out, the cost of green technologies (like EVs and battery development) is coming down quickly, and regardless of their rhetoric, Republicans say they will support American industry at all costs. Thanks to yet another summer of record temperatures around the world, companies are coming under increasing pressure (from both investors and customers) to do their part to slow down climate change because it is becoming business-critical for these firms.

The carbon emissions stakes are high, too. According to a report by Carbon Brief, Trump's White House win could add as much as four billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere by 2030 if he goes through with all that he's threatened. Under Biden's current policy, the US is on track to cut around 40 percent of its emissions by 2030.

At the same time, as expected, there was a lot of boisterous saber rattling and thinly veiled threats made by the oil and gas industry following Trump's win on Tuesday night. As the New York Times reported:

“The oil and gas industry called Tuesday’s election a clear rejection of Mr. Biden’s climate policies and an embrace of an energy policy that centers on fossil fuels. “Our long national nightmare with the Green New Deal is finally over because energy was on the ballot in 2024, and energy won,” Daniel Turner, the executive director for Power the Future, a fossil fuel advocacy group, said in a statement. “Let these results serve as a warning to any other politician who feels the green agenda is more important than families,” he said.”

Dan Eberhard, CEO of an oilfield services company, Canary LLC, told Bloomberg, “You are looking at, overall, a ‘drill baby drill’ philosophy. You are going to see offshore lease sales, you are going to see pipelines move much quicker, you are going to see fracking on federal lands and a mindset that is focused on lowering energy costs for consumers.” Unfortunately, that means that the Alaska Arctic Wildlife Refuge is on the table for drilling once again.

We’re also likely to see Trump pull out of the Paris Agreements. Yet, there could be hope. According to Bloomberg, states like California and Maryland have already begun secret discussions with China to keep climate pacts alive even under the Trump regime. As Bloomberg points out, "some state representatives were part of meetings in Beijing in September while the chief US climate negotiator, John Podesta, engaged in talks with his Chinese counterpart.”

While climate advocates, activists, and policymakers reel in the wake of a second Trump term, there may still be some bright spots and silver(ish) linings in the fight against climate change. We’ll have to wait until after Inauguration Day to find out what climate policy actually looks like under Donald J. Trump and, in the meantime, work to fight another day.