As global climate talks continue in Baku, Azerbaijan, and world leaders ponder how best to reduce global warming, we hope President-elect Donald Trump will seriously consider what has long been an established mantra for conservative Republicans — don’t borrow from future generations to pay for things today. The saying is most often used in the context of federal debt. That growing burden eventually comes due, if not in 2025 then with far greater consequences at some future date. And it’s particularly foolish when a nation borrows to support non-essential spending, not unlike maxing out a credit card for extravagances like meals of champagne and caviar.

In his first term, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, the international treaty on climate change. President Joe Biden recommitted the nation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions but the expectation today is that Trump 2.0 will return to form. He has, of course, called climate change a hoax and his position on the matter was clear enough during the campaign. He has called for a “Drill, baby, drill” energy policy to lower fossil fuel prices and greatly increase domestic production and consumption. Often left unstated is that this means a worsening of climate change — even as the world continues to experience its hottest year on record.

It would certainly be convenient for GOP politics if climate change did not exist. Who wants to pay more at the pump or for home heating? But science doesn’t work that way and, frankly, neither does public opinion. Most Americans worry about the worsening climate, believe in greater investment in green energy and think that government and business leaders aren’t doing enough to attack this problem. Trump can choose a path of compromise without losing public support. And here’s the bottom line: Does he want his legacy to be that of a modern-day Nero fiddling while the planet burns or might he favor the economic equivalent of a “soft” landing that recognizes the United States and the rest of the world must take reasonable steps to head off greater calamity?

Indeed, one may look at environmental policy generally as someone in the real estate business (hint, hint) might look at his portfolio. Restoring the Chesapeake Bay, for example, requires similar discipline and sacrifice or else this nation’s greatest estuary becomes an undesirable property. Keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere and the cost to our children — in worsened health, failing agriculture, damage to infrastructure, loss of land to flooding and harsher weather will make the national debt look like chump change.