Concerns Over ESG? What the New Trump Administration Could Mean for the Future of Climate Policy

Ellie Hardcastle on 21 March 2025

As environmental concerns climb the ranks of global priorities, one of the key factors under careful observation is how governments will approach addressing the challenge of climate change within their borders. However, this observation does not always lead to positive outcomes. In some cases, governments are seen to be failing to sustain progression towards climate change prevention, with Trump serving as a notable example. 

In this context, the growing significance of ESG frameworks for example, has emerged as a method of simultaneously holding governments and businesses accountable for the environmental impacts they may have. As international attention shifts towards sustainability, ESG has become a fundamental measure, guiding governmental and business policies and their consequent action in the battle against climate change. Yet, whilst some nations are embracing these standards, others are yet to be so accepting. In some cases, such necessary changes are often resisted.

“Is the climate changing because of human activity?”

“In my opinion, you have a thing called weather, and you go up and you go down.”

-Donald Trump 2022, Fox Business Interview with Stuart Varney

While Trump has not outright denied the existence of climate change in recent years, he has consistently expressed scepticism towards efforts to address it. Prior to Trump’s victory for example, a Carbon Brief analysis showed if he were to win the November 2024 election, US emissions could rise by an extra 4 billion tonnes by 2023 versus Biden’s. Therefore, it is easy to understand why there is growing concern about the potential environmental impact of a new Trump administration in 2025.

As of March 2025, this concern can arguably be considered justified. Before his second term, he was already recognised for rolling back over 100 environmental regulations and policies during his first term. This pattern has already been seen to be repeating itself, as within the first three months of his second presidency, Trump has wasted no time taking action, swiftly signing a series of anti-ESG executive orders.

ESG – Environmental, Social and Governance – is a framework of standards used to assess a business’s impact on society and the environment, as well as its transparency. The environmental criteria assess a company’s environmental care and the overall structure has become crucial for the commercial world, as socially conscious investors are using it to elevate potential business investments. Therefore, ESG is crucial, as the framework it offers, provides a mechanism enabling businesses to effectively address climate change. The significance of Trump’s anti-ESG executive orders is thus reinforced. 

Given Trumps pre-election rhetoric, it consequently came as little surprise when he moved quickly to challenge ESG policies after his January inauguration. One of these ‘moves’ came in the form of his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and related United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) pacts. This is not the first time he has taken such action, but this move comes in the wake of Biden’s re-entry in 2021.

The Unleashing American Energy is another recent executive order under the new Trump administration, likely to have potentially detrimental environmental implications. It undermines climate action by prioritising fossil fuel development and halting funding for clean energy initiatives, thereby hindering efforts to reduce emissions and transition to renewable energy.

When combined with his appointment of Chris Wright, a fossil fuel advocate and founder of the fracking company Liberty Energy, as Energy Secretary under his new government to boost oil and gas production, it become clear that Trump is not prioritising climate change prevention in his policy strategy. Therefore, this pro-fossil fuel administration is anticipated to cause even greater threats to the planet and those communities hit the hardest by the climate crisis.

The most vulnerable communities include indigenous people, land defenders, and low-income groups, already currently suffering as a result of extreme weather and environmental degradation. If fossil fuel extraction continues to expand under Trump as well as the rollback of environmental protections, both of which are anticipated, these already marginalised communities are likely to face greater risks. Such risks posed may include loss of land and increased exposure to climate disasters. When coupled with the lack of sufficient support for adaption against these anticipated risks, places these communities in a position to face even more severe threats.

What effect, if any, will this have on the UK?

Despite this being a primary issue in US climate policy, across the Atlantic in the UK, we are not necessarily immune to the impact of Trump’s recent climate actions. Consistent demographic shifts, coupled with growing geopolitical tensions, highlight the need for a more sophisticated and deeper international collaboration in order to deal with the issue of climate change. Given the US’s significant contribution to climate change due to its size, without their participation in this alliance, the impact of our efforts in the UK are likely to be considerably diminished. 

Ultimately, it is undeniable the new Trump administration will have significant environmental impacts, particularly within the US, but also with far-reaching effects that could be felt globally, including the UK. The rollback of environmental regulations is already underway. Fossil fuel industries are being promoted. Environmental enforcement may weaken. Support for anti-ESG policies is likely. These are all potential, if not already evident, consequences under the new Trump administration.

Words by Ellie Hardcastle

“I know a good joke when I steal one”: An exploration of plagiarism in comedy

Benjamin Forrest on 7 February 2021

The issue of ‘joke thieves’ and plagiarism in comedy has become somewhat of a regular discussion in the past few years, with perhaps the most prominent example being American comic Amy Schumer who was exposed as having plagiarised a vast array of jokes from other comics such as John Mulaney, Kathleen Madigan and Wendy Liebman (among many others). It is important to note that joke theft is not a new issue, by any means. The 1993 Denis Leary special ‘No Cure for Cancer’ is widely regarded to have completely ripped off the act of legendary comedian Bill Hicks – both the Denis Leary and Bill Hicks performances are currently available on Netflix so you can see for yourselves how similar the two are. Further back than that, the 1973 National Lampoon stage show ‘Lemmings’ was accused of stealing a joke from Monty Python. So why is plagiarism in comedy much more prominent nowadays? It is difficult to say for sure, but the ease at which content is viewable on the internet means that if Amy Schumer tells a joke very similar to a joke Wendy Liebman told in the early 90’s, the likelihood is that there’s a video of that performance online. Thus, perhaps joke theft is not a much more important issue these days, it is simply easier to identify.

Schumer has faced very little in the way of consequences in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence of thievery. Her new show ‘Expecting Amy’ is a hit on HBO Max, two of her stand-up specials along with her film ‘Trainwreck’ are still available on Netflix and she has won multiple awards from Critics’ Choice to an Emmy. It does not seem morally sound that Amy Schumer, and many other plagiarists, are allowed to create a successful and illustrious career based upon the jokes of other comics who are left to fall into obscurity. Denis Leary still enjoys an incredibly successful career as a writer and actor thanks largely due to the success of his ‘Cure for Cancer’ special, whereas Bill Hicks died in 1994 with only a handful of stand-up specials and an unaired Letterman performance to his name. Seemingly joke theft is not regarded as a big deal, when questioned on Leary’s plagiarism, Hicks quipped “I stole his act. I camouflaged it with punchlines, and to really throw people off, I did it before he did.”.

Many have argued that nobody can really own a joke, they are in the public domain and hold no real value. Stand-up legend Stewart Lee tackled this idea brilliantly in his routine about Joe Pasquale stealing a joke from Irish comedian Michael Redmond, and I believe the sentiment of that routine still rings true. Furthermore, in an industry as hard to break into as stand-up comedy, it is ludicrous to have to accept mainstream comics ripping-off jokes from more obscure acts – that probably will not find themselves on Live at the Apollo or Mock the Week or any other of the one-size-fits-all comedy programmes being thrust unto the viewing public by the BBC – as an inevitability. Aside from anything else, it is lazy. Plagiarism just goes to portray a lack of creativity or originality which, ultimately, will have a detrimental effect on comedy as a whole by limiting the success of new and original comics.

As a journalism student, I know how seriously plagiarism is taken in my field as well as many others such as science or music. Does it not, then, make sense for plagiarism in comedy to be taken just as seriously? It is an incredible injustice, yet it seems to be constantly shrugged off as a mere annoyance. A written joke should be held in the same regard as any other artform. The Verve made no money from ‘Bittersweet Symphony’ because it sampled an orchestral version of a Rolling Stones song, yet Amy Schumer is allowed to continue her ridiculously successful career built off the back of telling other people’s jokes, does that seem fair to you? Stop supporting the hacks.