The Trump Paradox: Could Future Trade Disruption Help the Climate?

By Al Leong, Blockchain Web3 CMO/CEO, Board Advisor

In an era of increasing climate pressure, technological disruption, and geopolitical volatility, one question is worth asking — however uncomfortable:

Could the very forces destabilizing the global economy also offer a path to lower emissions?

This isn’t a defense of chaos or mismanagement. It’s a look at systems-level feedback loops — especially when aggressive trade policy, like tariffs, introduces friction into the machinery of globalization.

As we look ahead to future elections, continued U.S.-China tension, and post-globalization trade dynamics, we should prepare for the possibility that the next major environmental shift won’t be driven by ESG — but by disruption.

1. If Global Trade Slows, Global Emissions Might Too

Future use of tariffs — whether by Trump, a successor, or foreign leaders — could fracture trade flows again. The impact won’t just be economic. It will likely ripple across energy use, shipping, and logistics.

Global freight is responsible for 2–3% of emissions, with shipping and aviation among the worst offenders. If protectionism or nationalist policies continue to gain ground, we could see a decline in long-haul logistics and shipping emissions.

In other words, less global trade = fewer container ships = reduced fossil fuel output.

This isn’t the outcome any administration would claim as climate policy — but it may be a byproduct nonetheless.

2. Reshoring Could Shift the Emissions Burden

As companies preemptively move supply chains closer to home to avoid tariff risk or geopolitical uncertainty, localization may become a climate ally — whether intentional or not.

Localized supply chains often rely on shorter ground transport, more automation, and cleaner regulatory environments. Compared to shipping goods across oceans, the environmental load may decrease. Not always — but often enough to matter.

A reshored supply chain doesn’t just hedge risk. It can reduce carbon intensity.

The future of “resilience through proximity” may end up doubling as a climate lever.

3. Reduced Demand = Lower Industrial Output

Trade disruption also affects global demand. If tariffs or sanctions reduce international purchasing power and access, factories in energy-intensive regions may scale down operations.

Heavy industry — steel, cement, electronics — is deeply tied to fossil fuel use, especially in parts of Asia. When demand contracts, so does energy consumption. This isn’t theory — it’s observable in pandemic-era trade dips and other shock events.

Future trade friction could unintentionally suppress emissions-heavy production — buying time for clean tech to catch up.

This doesn’t mean we hope for slowdown. But we’d be foolish not to anticipate its ripple effects.

4. Slowbalization as a Strategic Climate Moment

We’re already living in the era of “slowbalization” — a plateau or reversal of global integration. If nationalist and protectionist movements continue to define global policy over the next decade, the outcome could look like this:

• Lower emissions from decreased trade volume
• Accelerated innovation in local manufacturing
• Emergence of regional sustainability standards
• Stronger arguments for Web3, AI, and digital tracking of ESG

Ironically, the disruption itself creates space — space for sustainability advocates to push through reforms that were stalled under growth-at-all-costs globalization.

5. What Strategists Should Watch For

This is where systems thinking becomes critical.

You don’t have to admire chaos to harness its energy.

Future trade volatility, no matter its origin, could:

• Slow emissions in logistics, heavy industry, and energy
• Open a window for green industrial policy to emerge stronger
• Justify investments in decentralized systems, digital ESG tracking, and regenerative local economies

So the question isn’t whether tariffs are good. It’s whether we’ll be smart enough to use the momentum they accidentally create.

Final Thought: What the Trump Era Revealed About Disruption

Trump’s presidency revealed a truth most climate models don’t account for:

Sometimes emissions drop not from cooperation, but from friction.

While his administration didn’t intend to slow emissions, the trade instability it sparked gave us a glimpse of what happens when global throughput drops.

This insight matters more going forward than looking back.

If another administration — left, right, or chaotic — disrupts global trade again, environmentalists and systems leaders may find themselves with a strange new lever.

Not virtue.
Not global consensus.
Just force applied in unexpected places.

The strategist’s job is not to pick sides — but to read the signals, ride the waves, and design outcomes from whatever pressure the system offers.

Originally written by Al Leong, Blockchain Web3 CMO/CEO, Board Advisor. For more insight on systems strategy, brand impact, and decentralized transformation, follow on Medium or connect via LinkedIn.