Centre for Public Policy

Blog by Dr Hannah Salamon, Research Associate at the Centre for Public Policy.

The United States presidential election, a contest between former president Donald Trump of the Republican party and current Vice President Kamala Harris of the Democratic party, is weeks away and one of the most pressing political issues of our time is on the line: climate change. Because the US is a major emitter, as well as a top producer and exporter of fossil fuels, US climate policy has implications not only for domestic relations, but for the rest of the world's experience of climate change. Natural disasters exacerbated by climate change are rife worldwide, including in the American states, where Hurricanes Helene and Milton have hit less than two weeks apart, causing hundreds of deaths.

This election could make or break future efforts to mitigate and adapt to continued warming. Scoring abysmally low in the Climate Change Performance Index at 57th in the world, a new administration should promote climate friendly, realistic policy which benefits not only the environment, but also provides better quality of life and economic opportunity for the American people.

 

The importance of climate policy

But-- does climate policy make a difference? Although neither the United States nor the rest of the world is on track to meet many climate goals with current policy, the answer is a resounding ‘yes’. Research shows that climate change would be much worse without the implementation of the climate policy of the last 30 years, which has “offset about a third of the emissions growth we would have seen without any intervention”. Research has even identified the particular policies which have been most effective given country contexts. For instance, carbon pricing is identified as one of the most effective policy measures for developed countries (the United States has not implemented carbon pricing at the federal level, although some states have), while regulation serves developing countries better, yet in both cases policy mixes are often required.

 

The Presidential Candidates and their Climate Records

While my research shows that, comparing democracies across the world over time, women’s representation is associated with better climate outcomes, that’s not the only reason to suspect that Harris’ election as the first woman president may result in better climate policy than another Trump presidency. The Democratic party tends to be more in favour of taking climate action, while the Republican party and its voters prioritise climate issues significantly less; climate change denial is still rampant, and the right has successfully wrapped climate change into the ‘culture wars’ rhetoric. Yet to evaluate the potential future of American climate policy, campaign platforms only tell part of the story: both candidates’ records in the executive also suggest what may be to come.

The Trump administration (2016-2020) is well known for its roll-backs of climate and environmental policy. According to Brookings, while President, Donald Trump took at least 74 actions to weaken environmental protection, with huge impacts for emissions, pollution, and fossil fuel production and use, and withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement. His current campaign promises more of the same. Of “President Trump’s 20 Core Promises”, number 4 is “make America the dominant energy producer in the world, by far!”, by promising to increase fossil fuel production and use by ending restrictions on oil, natural gas, and coal. This flies in the face of calls for the US to reduce and end production of fossil fuels and instead pursue a green transition with a focus on renewables. The official Republican Party official platform makes no mention at all of climate change, renewable energy, pollution, or the environment.

Conversely, Harris’ record is significantly more aligned with climate change mitigation and adaptation. As Vice President she cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a milestone piece of legislation for the climate by promoting investment in clean energy and aiming to reach net zero by 2050. Yet, Harris’ official position on the climate is largely vague, asserting her position to promote environmental justice, bring down energy costs, hold polluters accountable, and invest in clean energy, but giving few specifics of how this will be accomplished. Importantly, Harris does not support ending fracking, a position she made clear in the only presidential debate of the election season. This poses similar concerns over movement away from US-produced fossil fuels.

 

Anticipating the Future

Environmental policy of the United States, a top oil and gas producer and CO2 emitter, must continue on the path of the Inflation Reduction Act in order for the world to reach climate goals set out in the Paris Agreement and avoid catastrophic levels of warming. While Harris’ position leaves much to be desired in terms of promoting transparent, effective, specific climate policy, her overall commitment to tackling climate change, clean energy expansion, emissions reductions, and fortification of environmental protection legislation suggest a cautiously optimistic future for climate action.

Yet it is a virtual certainty that another Trump presidency will be catastrophic for both American climate policy as well as for global achievement of climate goals. With American policy lagging behind much of the rest of the world, the US simply cannot afford any more climate backsliding.

 

 

---

Image from Library of Congress via Upsplash.

First published: 10 October 2024