America's climate landscape has been fundamentally redrawn. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law this July 4th, represents the most significant reversal of climate policy in recent U.S. history. According to analysis by Princeton University’s REPEAT Project, the bill, combined with Trump’s executive actions, could lead to more than 7 billion tonnes of additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. The same analysis also found a reduction in emissions of 25% by 2035 under the OBBBA using a 2005 baseline, compared to a 40-44% GHG emission reduction under Biden-era policies. Regrettably, such policies only serve to increase the necessity for future investments in adapting to a warmer world.

The legislation's most profound climate impact lies in what it aims to destroy. It targets a repeal of over $30 billion in climate adaptation-related funding from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), including the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants worth $2.8 billion. However, judicial intervention has immunised already-dispersed funds - $20 billion and $1.6 billion, respectively - from this repeal. Courts have ruled that it would be unlawful to claw back awards already made under the IRA.

This assault on climate finance comes as climate damages accelerate, with a record 28 individual weather and climate disasters with at least $1 billion in damages in 2023, followed by 27 such events in 2024. Perhaps most critically, the OBBBA guts essential monitoring systems. Funding for environmental data collection, NOAA programmes, and forest resilience initiatives has been rescinded. Without robust early warning systems, even well-intentioned adaptation efforts become shots in the dark.

The emissions trajectory post-OBBBA creates a dangerous feedback loop: every tonne of additional emissions today means more severe climate impacts tomorrow, requiring more costly adaptation measures. The OBBBA reduces both mitigation and adaptation funding simultaneously - a doubly perilous approach.

Yet, within the OBBBA's framework lies an intriguing paradox. While explicitly climate-focused programmes have been eliminated, defence and infrastructure investments inadvertently create new capabilities for adapting to a warmer world.

The $50 million appropriation for high-altitude stratospheric balloons, ostensibly for military purposes, represents perhaps the most innovative climate adaptation investment in the bill. These platforms, operating at 60,000-80,000 feet above sea level, offer advanced stratospheric monitoring and earth observation capabilities, currently only served by three 50-year-old aircraft. Real-time atmospheric monitoring enables more accurate extreme weather forecasting, while long-duration observation can track slow-onset changes like drought development. The technology's versatile nature means spillover climate benefits can accrue from this defence spending.

The legislation's $1 billion investment in water conveyance and surface water storage enhancement represents another significant adaptation measure, though framed as infrastructure rather than climate policy. This funding will address critical vulnerabilities in America’s water systems, enhancing drought resilience, flood management capacity, and water security infrastructure, essential for communities facing changing precipitation patterns.

The OBBBA's largest climate-relevant investment is the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Programme. Rural communities face disproportionate climate risks due to their dependence on climate-sensitive sectors and limited healthcare infrastructure. While not explicitly climate-focused, this infrastructure investment represents anticipatory adaptation, strengthening rural communities' capacity to respond to climate-related health emergencies - from heat stress to vector-borne diseases to mental health impacts from extreme weather events.

The OBBBA's most intriguing aspect may be its inadvertent demonstration of adjustable approaches to climate investment. By embedding climate-relevant capabilities within defence and infrastructure spending, the legislation creates politically durable climate benefits.

Stratospheric systems provide Earth observation capabilities crucial for climate monitoring. Water infrastructure investments enhance drought resilience while serving broader economic needs. Rural health programmes strengthen climate adaptation while addressing healthcare access. These models provide a path forward for climate investment in constrained political environments: immerse climate benefits within programmes that serve multiple constituencies.

The OBBBA's retreat from federal climate spending forces innovation at the state and local levels. California's launch of a $10 billion climate resilience bond and Florida's insurance reforms suggest state-level leadership is already emerging. Private markets are responding too: parametric insurance products are expanding, and resilience-tech startups are attracting capital.

Yet this shift risks creating a patchwork of adaptation capacity. Well-resourced states may thrive while others lag behind - precisely the inequality the IRA's community-level resilience programmes were designed to address. State and local governments must accelerate progress on adaptation through regional climate resilience funds, catastrophic insurance pools, and performance-based adaptation contracts. The private sector needs defined regulatory frameworks and targeted incentives to invest in adaptation solutions and plug the federal funding gap.

The OBBBA forces a fundamental rethink of American climate resilience. The legislation's legacy - eliminating explicit adaptation programmes and a retreat from climate ambition, coupled with inadvertently creating new climate resilience capabilities through defence and infrastructure spending, may ultimately characterise the next era of American climate policy.

A notable provision in the OBBBA introduces a new fiscal approach to clean energy projects on federal lands, especially wind and solar. Beginning in January 2026, 50% of rent, royalty, and capacity payments from wind and solar developments on public land must flow back to the states and counties that host these projects. This provision commands overwhelming bipartisan support, with a national survey finding that 91% of Democrats and 87% of Republicans support giving localities a higher fiscal stake in local energy projects.

Solar and wind made up 96% of new US power-generating capacity in the first third of 2025, now making up more than 22% of U.S. installed utility-scale generating capacity.

To Truth, Justice and a Better Tomorrow.

Know someone interested in adapting to a warmer world? Share Liveable with someone who should be in the know.

Or copy and paste this link to share with others: https://research.liveable.world/subscribe