Trump, Harris and the climate crisis

Last month, we have seen two major hurricanes hit the US, Hurricane Helene became one of the deadliest storms in US history killing more than 220 people and causing billions of dollars of damage as it tore a path through the key electoral swing states of Georgia and North Carolina. Two weeks later Hurricane Milton ravaged Florida. Scientific consensus is clear that climate change is making this sort of disaster more frequent and increasing intensity. 

A US Presidential election is one of life’s few genuinely binary choices, two candidates, one winner, one loser.  Given that the climate crisis remains strangely muted in the campaign discourse, it is worth first questioning if it matters to the voters and if so, to then look at where the candidates stand.

The voter landscape

Polling shows that 60% of Americans believe climate impacts are already here, and an additional 16% anticipate them soon. Majorities want to prioritize renewable energy over fossil fuels, with two-thirds favoring a shift to wind, solar, and other renewables. Yet, only 5% cite climate as their top priority with issues like the economy, immigration, and reproductive rights overshadow it in the national debate.

We also have the peculiarities of the US electoral system making nationwide numbers less important than you would think. In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, around 6 to 8 states are generally considered “in play” or “swing states,” meaning they could realistically be won by either major candidate.

Could those concerned with climate make the difference in these tight races? The Environmental Voter Project estimates there are hundreds of thousands of “climate voters” in pivotal states like Arizona and Pennsylvania, who didn’t vote in the 2020 election but could swing the 2024 outcome if they turn out. In an election that will be won or lost on fine margins, every vote matters and so on to the candidates.

Trump’s playbook: A return to deregulation

Project 2025’s playbook

While the former president has distanced himself from “Project 2025,” in a climate sense it is consistent with Mr Trumps long established policies. The playbook of expanding fossil fuel leases on federal land, curbing EPA powers, and reducing efficiency standards is depressingly familiar.

On Day 1, Former President Trump has pledged to dismantle two key EPA rules. The first, targeting greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, which applies pressure on automakers to transition to electric vehicles. Given that transport is the largest source of US Green House Gas emissions, at about 28% of the total this would be a major hit to the country’s ability to meet its climate targets. The second, a potential repeal of emissions standards for coal and gas-fired power plants could extend the life of coal plants and greenlight new fossil fuel projects and so would be similarily problematic.

We will always have Paris… or will we?

Another day 1 pledge is to once again withdraw from the Paris Accord. Given the increasing need for intertnational action to avoid increaingluy severe climate impacts in the years to come having the world’s largest historic and current 2nd largest polluter leave the table would be a huge setback. There has also been the suggestion that a new Trump administration may go one step further and formally leave the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change itself, if the US left this international treaty it would require a two thirds majority in the senate to get back in.

What about the IRA?

Longer term, the Former President has also stated that he will target the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Biden’s landmark climate bill. In reality, dismantling the IRA entirely would require the Republicans to hold strong majorities in the Senate, the legislation’s impact can be dramatically scaled back through the tightening of tax credit eligibility and through the withholding the tens of billions of as yet undeployed funds. There is also much to be done in terms of permitting, unclogging bottlenecks and upgrading the grid that is required to maximise the IRA’s impact, none of which are likely to happen with a change in policy.

Elon and EVs

The Former President’s position on EVs has been complicated recently through his relationship with Elon Musk. The rhetoric on the roll back on EV tax credits and supports has become less pronounced. Where this ends up is a question but it is worth noting that Mr Musk has many interests beyond the EV market and that Tesla are better positioned to weather the storm of diminished EV support than its domestic competitors. Given the enormous strides made by Chinese EV manufacturers over recent years it is also arguable that Tesla’s major competitor going forward is more likely to be BYD and so supporting Mr Trump with his tariff policy on Chinese goods might be a solid tactical move for Musk and Tesla.  

Harris’s position: Building on the foundations

As Vice President Harris was parachuted into the candidacy following President Biden’s decision to withdraw from the race, she has not been subject to the same level of political scrutiny as in a typical race for the Democratic presidential nomination. In addition, climate has been a second order talking point so it is difficult to discern her exact position. 

For now the best we can glean is that Vice President Harris’s position can be described as continuation Biden. There is much to frame this as a positive. Climate has consistently been a high priority for the Biden administration. When he leaves office in January 2025, President Biden will be able to credibly claim that he has done more on climate change than any other president.

However, we can not ignore the fact the United States produced more crude oil than any nation at any time ever, for the past six years in a row. This has the Biden White House in the awkward position of taking credit for facilitating the extraction of fossil fuels while simultaneously trying to curb their use.

Historically, the Vice President has championed policies such as the Green New Deal and has stated opposition to fracking, however her current climate stance centers on fully implementing the IRA. With Pensilvania as such a crucial swing state the backtracking on Fracking can simultaneously be seen as pragmatic, understandable and disappointing. With the IRA still unfolding, particularly in areas like hydrogen tax credits and the need for associated reforms on planning/permitting, grid and infrastructure funding mentioned above, much good can be achieved with this approach, even if there is a notable lack of stated ambition.

Permitting reform is a critical component of the Harris agenda. President Biden’s legacy and Harris’s ability to build on it, if she wins the White House will in no small part depend on facing the challenge that permitting, currently an expensive, tedious, and time-consuming process, sometimes stretching decades. It is possible that a Harris Presidency could be more ambitious, however it is difficult to speculate outside of noting that VP Harris has garnered endorsements from environmental organizations and over 80 Nobel laureates who may well know than this humble observer. 

The decision ahead

The Harris campaign is clearly more positive on climate issues than Team Trump. Should the former president be elected his administration would likely be a major setback for global ambitions to limit the rise of global temperatures. Should the VP be victorious, the globe should hope for and the American people should demand, ambition in facing the challenge of our generation. 

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.