Comment and analysis: The year of elections - the US Presidential candidates and the climate crisis

Don Smith and Louise SeilerMonday 23 September 2024

On 5 November, the US votes for its next President. The contest is between Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, and the Democrat candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris. For US voters – and the entire world – one of the key issues to consider is the impact each might have on the climate crisis. 

Though the world experienced 13 straight months with record heat in the period from June 2023, only about one third of Americans said that addressing the climate crisis should be a top priority this election year, according to a Pew Research Center poll published earlier this year. However, nearly half those surveyed said that improving the energy system should be a top priority. 

Unleashing ‘American energy’ or clean energy

In his nomination acceptance speech, Trump didn’t mention the words ‘climate change’, but offered a pledge that he would lower the cost of energy through a ‘drill baby drill’ policy, increasing fossil fuel production. Trump declared that ‘we are a nation that has the opportunity to make an absolute fortune with its energy’. 

Trump’s choice of Vice-Presidential candidate, US Senator JD Vance, asserted in 2020 that society had a ‘climate problem’ that wouldn’t be solved by increased use of natural gas, which he described as ‘[not] exactly the sort of thing that’s gonna take us to a clean energy future’. But, by 2022, he was questioning to what extent human activity contributes to the climate crisis. 

Kamala Harris hasn’t put climate change policies at the heart of her campaign. But, in her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, she did declare that her aim, if elected President, would be to protect, ‘the freedom to breathe clean air […] and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis’. 

During the Convention, climate and energy issues weren’t clearly defined by Harris. But, during the pivotal 10 September televised debate with Trump, Harris acknowledged that ‘the young people of America deeply care about [the climate crisis] issue’, while also pointing to the beneficial impacts of the clean energy transition on the creation of manufacturing jobs, especially among car workers.

Despite her relative caution on what was a key issue for President Biden’s campaign in 2020, Harris still looks likely to take measures against fossil fuels, in part considering her record as a Californian senator. Also, the choice by Harris of Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, as her Vice-Presidential pick is seen by most observers as significant given his strong advocacy for climate action.

However, serving as President requires compromise. For instance, Harris recently said that, if elected, she would not ban fracking, reversing the position she adopted during her unsuccessful 2020 campaign for the presidential nomination. In the September debate, she highlighted that she was the tie-breaking vote in the US Senate for the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provides huge incentives for energy transition but also opened new federal leases for fracking.  

Fracking is a common practice in Pennsylvania – a key swing state and the second-largest natural gas producer after Texas – which has probably influenced this change. A large amount of US lithium production could also come from the wastewater of gas wells in Pennsylvania. The prospect of fueling the production of electric batteries with a by-product of drilling makes it less than straightforward for Harris to oppose natural gas production. 

What could happen in January 2025?

The Biden administration’s impact on the green energy transition has been significant. The Inflation Reduction Act, with its $783bn expected investment in energy and climate change, is making a difference, especially in the transport sector, where adoption of electric vehicles is on the rise. Assuming the investments were to continue under a Harris presidency, which seems almost certain, the US could still be on track to achieve the national goal of reducing emissions by between 50 and 52 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, if further federal and state action takes place to tackle the remaining emissions. Moreover, a Harris presidency would probably oppose all legal challenges to Biden-era regulations aimed at addressing the climate crisis.

Trump has made clear that he doesn’t intend to support the Inflation Reduction Act’s objectives, saying he would ‘redirect’ unspent funds. He claimed to be a ‘big fan of solar’ during the presidential debate, but criticised how much land solar farms take up. And his desire to raise tariffs on imported goods would affect solar components and batteries manufactured in China.

There has been some conjecture over how influential the ‘2025 Presidential Transition Project’ might be. The thousand-page report overseen by the Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation includes chapters written by Trump administration officials and calls for a whole-of-government ‘unwinding’ of what it calls the Biden presidency’s ‘climate fanaticism’. The Trump campaign has, however, distanced itself, claiming it has ‘nothing to do’ with the document. 

Regulations that could be targeted by a Trump administration are those limiting power plant pollution, promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This would please a declining coal industry that Trump was unable to revive during his time as President. Such an administration would also be likely to increase the production of oil and gas, in response to actions taken by President Biden that have reduced leasing by raising royalties and fees. And, despite some recent hesitation following Tesla CEO’s Elon Musk’s endorsement of Trump, the latter has also confirmed he’d consider ending tax credits for electric vehicle purchases. 

There’s no doubt that a Trump presidency would affect US climate and energy transition policies. His administration rolled back dozens of environmental rules, nominated an ex-coal lobbyist to be the head of the EPA, withdrew from the Paris Agreement and appointed federal judges who have opposed government climate initiatives.

But, rolling back legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act requires an act of Congress, and some US House Republicans have expressed opposition to repealing the law. Indeed, certain sectors of the US economy, such as the automotive industry, have shifted towards the green transition, having benefited from tax incentives established by the Biden administration to boost electric vehicle sales. 

The Act has also benefited Republican states that have championed initiatives such as carbon capture or the production of batteries, and Representatives from these states might be unwilling to end this financial windfall. And, regardless of any potential legislative change, private investment and state policies aren’t controlled by presidential decisions, so environmental objectives could still be supported at other levels of decision-making.  

The Harris-Trump contest is new, but two things are already abundantly clear. First, Trump denies the climate crisis is happening and, instead, says it’s a ‘conspiracy’ by other countries to harm the US. Second, while addressing the climate crisis is a key issue for Harris supporters, especially the younger ones, she has chosen to ‘soft pedal’ her goal, which probably includes aggressive promotion of an assortment of policies. It appears she will leave it to Walz to campaign on the climate issue. 

Don Smith is Editor-in-Chief of the IBA Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law and an associate professor of the practice of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. He can be reached at don.smith@du.edu.

Louise Seiler is a graduate student at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. She will earn a Master’s Degree in Environmental Law and Policy in 2024. She can be reached at louise.seiler@du.edu.
 

visuals6x/AdobeStock.com