- US election set to take place on 5th November
- The Democratic and Republican candidates have vastly different approaches to climate change
- The US is one of the biggest Co2 emitters in the world
US presidential candidates Donald Trump (left) and Kamala Harris (right) – pic credit: @realdonaldtrump/insta and @kamalaharris/insta
The US presidential election is just days away, and so far the campaign has been as contentious and bitter as any in living memory.
Whatever the result on the 5th November, there will most likely be huge ramifications across the world, with the Russo-Ukraine war, the war in Gaza and relations between China and the West and much else hinging on the identity of the next occupant of the White House.
Another matter is the environment and how the US, as the world’s second largest manufacturing nation, will protect the planet, at least over the next four years.
At the time of writing, Vice-President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris holds just a one-point lead over former President and Republican candidate Donald Trump, according to a YouGov/CBS nationwide poll in late October 2024.
The two candidates differ substantially on their views on climate change and what to do about it. We’ve taken a look at what each candidate has said about the environment and their policies, and attempted to answer the question: would a Harris or Trump presidency be better for our planet?
What are the candidates’ positions on climate change?
Kamala Harris addresses a crowd at a recent rally in Michigan – pic credit: @KamalaHQ
Democratic Party nominee – Kamala Harris
Vice-President Kamala Harris has a track record of working to protect the environment in legislation. She delivered the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which set aside $369 billion for investments in clean energy.
Harris’ campaign claims this has lowered household energy costs and created “hundreds of thousands of high-quality clean energy jobs” and built a “thriving clean energy economy”.
Her stated aim is to “unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis” and advance what she calls “environmental justice”, which includes protecting public lands, public health and improving resilience to climate disasters.
She will also look to lower household energy costs and create “millions of new jobs” and secure clean air and water by holding “polluters to account.”
To do this Harries will reportedly look to expand environmental regulations and bring the US broadly in line with the EU’s climate policies, with a clear pathway to net zero based on low-carbon technology (LCT).
One of her policies on this front is a ban on new oil and gas leases on federal land and a compulsory requirement on all companies already involved in fossil fuel extraction to reassess how their operations affect the environment.
Former US President Donald Trump at a rally in Tempe, Arizona – pic credit @realdonaldtrump/insta
Republican nominee – Donald Trump
By contrast, former President Donald Trump has made deregulation and energy independence the central focus of his environmental policies, and has committed to “unleashing” the US’ natural resources.
By doing this, Trump believes he can make the US energy independent and decrease imports of foreign oil and gas.
Additionally, he believes deregulation of the energy sector is not just the way to bring down energy costs but will also cut inflation and improve the country’s industrial and manufacturing output.
In his policy document, Trump has vowed to increase drilling and remove “crippling” and “market-distorting” restrictions on US energy production, including oil, natural gas and coal and make the country the “dominant energy producer in the world”.
As part of this he will ramp up domestic energy production “from all sources, including nuclear” to “power American homes, cars, and factories” with what he calls “reliable, abundant, and affordable energy”.
Which nominee is better for the environment?
By any measure, it is clear that Democratic nominee and Vice-President Harris is the best candidate for the environment, as she plans to keep existing environmental protections and look to ensure private companies behave responsibly.
Harris was instrumental to the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act, one of the largest and most comprehensive investments in clean energy in US history.
Among the Act’s goals are to “empower and equip” homeowners to upgrade their homes so they can “save energy and reduce their energy costs”.
This includes helping families fix inefficiencies such as stopping draughts and heating loss through insulation.
The Act is also designed to help with the cost of energy-efficient upgrades, including solar panel and heat pump installation, as well as making the construction of energy-efficient residential newbuilds easier.
The law also includes just under $9 billion to retrofit and electrify home appliances. It also includes £3.5 billion to improve the home energy efficiency for low-income families and $550 million which will be provided to states and local governments to implement further energy reduction measures.
Harris has a clear track record of enabling legislation that protects the environment, and with the Inflation Reduction Act has also tried to make it easier for households to benefit from the cost-cutting potential of solar panels and EVs.
By contrast, Trump’s insistence that the US should pursue energy independence may sound like it would cease the country’s dependence on foreign oil, it would do little to cut its carbon footprint.
This is because it would likely be replaced by domestic oil drilling and gas extraction as Trump has repeatedly stated his intention to turn the US into the biggest producer of energy in the world.
While other countries such as the UK are pursuing energy independence, they are doing so by investing in LCT and clean energy, such as solar, wind and EV infrastructure, and they are making an effort to cut average household Co2 emissions.
There is little mention of LCT and clean energy in Trump’s policy document, and he has even stated that he would try to repeal much of President Biden’s EV infrastructure initiatives, as well the Green Deal, a 10-year plan to make the US energy cleaner.
In April 2023, President Biden and Vice-President Harris announced a goal to have 50% of all new vehicle sales in the US electric by 2030 with a flurry of public and private commitments to support the transition.
A second Trump presidency would possibly destabilise the EV transition; the 78-year old is on record saying that EVs would cause “a bloodbath” for the already beleaguered US automotive industry.
He has also claimed paying for the necessary EV charging infrastructure would cost $9 trillion, although this figure is not verified by the industry or any official source.
However, he appears to have shifted due to the support of Tesla-chief executive Elon Musk, who has reportedly donated $45 million to his campaign.
At a rally in Atlanta, Georgia in August 2024, Trump stated: “I’m for electric cars, I have to be because Elon
[Musk]
endorsed me so strongly.”
This sudden change in tone, and the transactional nature of it, is evidence of how unpredictable Trump’s policies on the environment will be if is elected again.
Both nominees see energy as the main way to stave off inflation and improve the economy, but the difference is that a Harris administration can be relied on to invest in clean energy sources and technology, while attempting to regulate the US’ existing energy production.
How much Co2 does the US produce?
According to The World Bank, the US is the second highest contributor to global Co2 and accounts for approximately 14% of emission. This is less than half that of the world’s biggest carbon contributor, China, which accounts for around 30%.
In 2022, the US produced 6,390 metric tons of Co2 emissions (MtCO2e). While this is far behind China on 14,400 MtCO2e, it is a long way ahead of third-placed India on 3,520 MtCO2e and the European Union (EU) on 3,430 MtCO2e.
This difference is also reflected in the average household Co2 emissions. In the US, the average household emits anywhere from 19 to 90 tonnes of Co2-equivalent, whereas in the EU it is between 4 and 50 tonnes.
Going further, the average US citizen is responsible for 16 tonnes of Co2 a year through energy consumption, diet, transportation, purchasing habits and much else.
This is higher than the average UK citizen, which emits six tonnes of Co2, and someone from the EU, which is 7.2 tonnes; it is also far higher than the global average of four tonnes of Co2 per person per year.
What industries in the US produce the most Co2?
Transportation accounts for most of the US’ GHG emissions
- Transportation – accounts for 28% of the US’ annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This shows how vital it is to encourage use of electric vehicles (EVs) and to improve the US’ charging infrastructure.
- Electric power – accounts for 25% of the US’ GHG emissions, and 60% of this comes from burning fossil fuels.
- Industry – accounts for 23% of the US’ GHG emissions.
- Residential & commercial – accounts for 13% of US’ GHG emissions, and this shows how important it is to cut domestic carbon household emissions.
- Agriculture – accounts for 10% of the US’ GHG emissions.
Summary:
- There are sharp differences between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s policies on the environment, most notably in regulation.
- Harris helped President Biden bring into law the Inflation Reduction Act, one of the biggest clean energy investment acts in history.
- Trump is hoping to radically deregulate the energy sector and has a stated aim of making the US the world’s biggest oil and gas producer.
- The average US household produces far more Co2 than a European or British one.
