It is well understood that November’s US presidential election could have dire consequences for global action on climate change. Donald Trump and his Republican Party define their campaign in part by opposition to policies that support the energy transition, often citing short term negative consequences for the US economy and great power competition with China.
Trump’s new Agenda for the 47th President (Agenda 47), and the formal Republican Platform 2024, feature promises to ‘on-shore’ manufacturing, especially reducing imports from China; to ‘Bring Home Critical Supply Chains; Buy American, Hire American; [and] Become the Manufacturing Superpower’ (p11); and to ‘Build the Greatest Economy in History’ (Ch 3).
An energy boom based on fossil fuel
Trump used to decry climate change as a ‘hoax’ but in this election campaign has reframed his objection to one about cost, stating that he will not allow money ‘to be spent on meaningless Green New Scam ideas’.
Instead, his domestic agenda aims to ‘deconstruct the administrative state’ from a regulatory perspective, freeing up constraints on manufacturing growth, and then use industrial and trade policy to drive growth through an energy boom based on fossil fuel extraction – echoing his mantra of ‘Drill, Baby, Drill.’ His Agenda 47 energy piece pledges to ‘…rapidly issue approvals for all worthy energy infrastructure projects with a focus on maximum speed.’
Beyond the domestic, Trump’s approach to US economic and foreign affairs will have significant environmental consequences. An ‘America First’ industrial policy could erect significant trade barriers (especially, but not exclusively to China), through significant tariffs on all in-coming goods.
His foreign policy may increase the need for countries to worry about security issues – both requiring investment in defence and in supply chain security (for energy, food, and critical goods).
By disrupting trade and increasing global tensions, other countries’ sustainability transitions would be at risk of being de-prioritized or stalling.
In his Agenda 47 energy piece, Trump also promises that ‘We will again get out of Paris’. Given that the US is the world’s largest emitting economy (per capita) – second to China in absolute terms – such plans to double down on fossil fuel and hold back the transition to renewable energy may, in aggregate, put Paris Agreement climate goals forever out of reach.
It may also reduce the political space for international cooperation of the kind that is essential for effective climate action.
When Republican policy areas are analysed together, the combination of slashing environmental regulations, America First industrial and trade policy, and the various elements of foreign policy, a new Trump administration promises only – directly and indirectly – to frustrate ambitious, effective climate policies in the US and abroad.
Harris’s platform – and potential
Unlike Trump, his opponent Kamala Harris is concerned about the environment. In her nomination acceptance speech, Harris reframed environmental concerns as being patriotic – speaking of fighting for fundamental freedoms for US citizens: ‘the freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis’.
The Democratic Platform promises far less disruption to current US policy than the Republican Agenda 47. Democrats acknowledge climate change as a real threat and promise to push climate action in the US and globally, stating that ‘as Democrats, we believe the United States has an indispensable role to play in solving the climate crisis, and we have an obligation to help other nations carry out this work’ (p37).
Domestically, a Harris administration could see the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened. It will continue to use industrial policy (the Inflation Reduction Act) to incentivize the energy transition from renewables to electrification of transport – whilst also reducing emissions from fossil fuel infrastructure. Internationally, Democrats say they would maintain US global climate leadership through the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement process.
Despite these encouraging signs, Harris to date has avoided outlining specific policy. This may be strategic to maintain ‘big tent’ appeal among US voters. Nonetheless, even without key details, her campaign is being endorsed by a range of environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, perhaps because the Trump alternative is always likely to be worse.
Even so, a new Harris presidency would have the opportunity to not only provide consistency on US policy but to fully embed an energy transition through its next term. With sufficiently ambitious carrots and sticks deployed, by 2029, the energy transition perhaps could becomes too big to roll back.