Climate Change: How Business Leadership Is Outpacing Trumpism and Embracing Reality

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. While many governments around the world hesitate or delay taking decisive action, a significant portion of the initiatives to address it now comes from the business world itself — particularly large American corporations. The paradox is that these companies, although negatively affected by emissions regulations and climate policies, have chosen to take a leading role in the transition toward a sustainable economy.

This is due to two main reasons. First, economic logic. The physical consequences of climate change — wildfires, floods, extreme weather — damage infrastructure, disrupt supply chains, and affect demand. Companies like Apple, Google, General Motors, and BlackRock understand that inaction costs more than action. Second, pressure from consumers and investors for sustainable practices is growing stronger. Companies are now expected to demonstrate social responsibility, not only for their public image but also as a matter of long-term survival.

A significant portion of climate action initiatives paradoxically originates from the business sector itself. Companies increasingly recognize the economic risks, as well as the growing demands from consumers and investors for sustainable practices.

Within this context, Donald Trump’s role as a climate change denier appears almost anachronistic. During his presidency (2017–2021), the United States withdrew from the Paris Agreement, while fossil fuel production was strongly promoted. Trump rolled back environmental regulations and rejected the scientific consensus on the climate crisis. However, despite his policies, many states (such as California), cities, and private companies continued to implement ambitious climate strategies. In essence, the market and society did not follow the White House’s backward step. Even after leaving office, Trump’s rhetoric about climate change being a "hoax" and his opposition to regulation seem to have little influence on the broader direction of the market. On the contrary, the reality of the climate crisis and international pressure are accelerating the transition. This shows that “Trumpian” denialism is not shaping corporate strategy in any significant way.

Trump’s actions may hinder efforts to mitigate and eliminate the effects of climate change, given the United States’ critical role in this global endeavor. Achieving meaningful progress requires broad international consensus, much like the coordinated effort of the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild the Western world after World War II. The United States, as a global superpower, brings significant influence to the table, and its active participation is essential.

However, the global fight against climate change will not stop even without the contribution of the U.S. Moreover, no American president remains in office forever. It is highly unlikely that Trump’s successor after 2028 will maintain the same destructive rhetoric and counterproductive policies. What is more probable is a delay in achieving the net-zero target for greenhouse gas emissions—from the originally planned 2050 to perhaps 2060.

In conclusion, the issue of climate change is increasingly being managed not only by government institutions but also — and perhaps more effectively — by businesses that recognize its economic and ethical significance. Trump’s role, while impactful in public discourse, seems to be outpaced by a new reality: one in which sustainability is no longer a political choice but a business necessity.