10/11/2024
The contest
By Lisa Friedman
I’ve covered climate policy for 16 years.
Will governments slash greenhouse gases enough to prevent the most dangerous impacts of global warming? Scientists say the next few years will provide the answer. The United States has pumped the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere of any country since the Industrial Revolution, and that makes the next president’s energy choices enormously consequential.
Vice President Kamala Harris calls climate change an “existential threat” that the United States must combat. She’s pledged to build on the billions of dollars the Biden administration invested in clean energy (such as solar, wind and other renewables). Although congressional Republicans may block new laws, she is likely to use regulatory power to reduce emissions.
Former President Donald Trump dismisses climate change as a “hoax.” As Hurricane Helene ripped through the Southeast, he called global warming “one of the great scams.” He wants to extract more fossil fuels — the burning of which drives climate change — and end renewable energy subsidies.
The Morning is running a series explaining the policy stakes of the election. In this installment, I’ll focus on climate change, which I’ve covered for 16 years.
Trump’s ‘liquid gold’ agenda A pump jack extracts oil in Signal Hill, Calif. Jae C. Hong/Associated Press. Trump does not consider climate change a problem that requires a solution. Curtailing fossil fuels, he argues, hurts the economy and drives up energy prices.
During his first term, Trump appointed people who deny climate science to key positions. He withdrew the United States from the Paris agreement on climate change, a 2015 accord in which nearly all nations pledged to limit warming. He rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations, including limits to emissions from power plants and automobiles.
There are three ways analysts believe he could go further if he wins: by weakening government agencies; expanding fossil fuel production; and impeding clean energy.
Trump’s allies have pledged not just to reverse the climate regulations that President Biden restored, but also to dismantle parts of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy by shuttering offices, relocating staff members and embedding loyalists in key positions.
He has promised to grant virtually all permits to drill oil — which he calls “liquid gold under our feet” — on public lands and waters, keep coal plants burning and make it easier to build gas pipelines. Those policies could create new jobs, but they would emit greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to another billion cars on the road, according to a study by Carbon Brief, a climate analysis site.
The final area is clawing back clean-energy subsidies that the Biden administration is doling out under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Yet while Trump rails against electric vehicles as “green scams” and claims windmills cause cancer (they don’t), he might find resistance to slashing those programs in Republican congressional districts that are receiving money. This summer, 18 House Republicans wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson asking him not to eliminate clean-energy tax credits next year.
Harris’s plan
Harris wants to boost clean energy, but she doesn’t have a ton of options. She has two main ideas: She’d continue Biden’s subsidies and improve electrical transmission from remote wind and solar power generators to population centers that can consume it.
Fixing the nation’s electricity grid might seem like a wonky presidential platform, but it could determine whether the United States meets its climate targets. The Biden administration has pledged to cut emissions roughly in half by the end of this decade, which would mean massive deployment of clean energy. But the nation’s fractured transmission system can’t handle that growth right now.
It will be up to Congress to fix that problem. But Republicans insist that any bipartisan deal also fast-track pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure. That’s a poison pill for many environmental groups. The Harris campaign hasn’t weighed in on such a compromise.
Without legislation, a Harris administration would have limited tools. The E.P.A. could set new controls on big industrial polluters — steel and cement plants, factories, oil refineries and others. She could also lobby Congress for a “carbon tariff” against China and other global competitors — a fee added to imported goods like steel and cement based on their carbon emissions. She also might use executive authority to limit new gas exports or drilling on federal lands.
All of those possibilities come with challenges, either from the courts or political opponents.
