U.S. elections: is the climate at stake?

2024 marks a pivotal moment in modern electoral history, with citizens in at least 64 countries -home to roughly half of the world's population - casting their votes for key political leaders. Indonesia, India, South Africa, Brazil, UK, France… and now the U.S.: the outcomes of these elections will have profound implications for climate action and our collective future. Our scientist, Beatrice Cordiano, provides some insights on this matter.

On November 5th, we woke up to the headline “Trump won the elections”— the very outcome we had feared for the environment. The impact of this election reaches far beyond the United States, influencing global economics, politics, geopolitics, and the climate. What shall we expect then? What will become of the planet?

Over the past two years, a clean energy revolution has been sweeping the nation, fuelled by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – a landmark legislation allocating around $370 billion to achieve a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Record-breaking solar power installations and electric vehicle sales are reshaping the U.S. energy landscape. Even traditionally Republican-led states like Montana and Utah are drafting climate plans to secure federal funding. Yet, the United States remains the world’s largest holder of coal reserves and the leading producer of oil and gas: last year, it broke all records by averaging 12.9 million barrels of crude oil and 37.8 trillion cubic feet of dry natural gas production per day. It is also the first historical contributor to global warming and ranks today as the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, following China. It goes without saying, the country significantly influences both global emissions and the international political landscape regarding climate change.

Once a prominent issue in U.S. elections, climate change seems to have lost urgency among voters in 2024. Polling data suggests it played a lesser role than in 2020, with only 37% of voters in a September Pew Research survey describing it as "very important" to their vote. This marks a significant shift, though the polarization remains deep along party lines: 62% of voters supporting Kamala Harris view climate change as a top priority, compared to only 11% of Trump supporters.
However, voters were clear about which candidate they trust more to handle the issue. A recent Gallup survey found that 61% of voters believe Harris would have been better equipped to tackle climate change, with even 25% of Republicans agreeing she would be more effective than Trump. While climate-related disasters have recently hit key swing states, climate change was overshadowed by topics such as immigration, the economy, and democracy. Yet, it remains a sharp point of division between the candidates and their supporters.

Discussions about climate change are often reduced to a binary debate: climate deniers versus climate alarmists, leaving out the nuanced perspectives that lie in between. The reality is that this oversimplified framing limits effective strategic communication. This reflects into the position of the 2024 candidates: with starkly different outlooks, Trump and Harris framed energy policy through distinct lenses.

Now, we do not know what Harris - who played a key role in securing the most ambitious climate legislation in U.S. history, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) - would have done in office but what we know is she campaigned on deepening America’s commitment to clean energy, building on the Biden administration's climate policies while balancing reliance on domestic fossil fuels.
In contrast, Trump, alongside his running mate JD Vance, dismissed climate change as “one of the greatest scams of all time,” pledging to dismantle regulations tied to Biden’s IRA and ran on a “Drill, baby, drill” platform, prioritizing immediate economic relief over long-term climate goals. Ironically, even some of the most conservative states have become leaders in renewables, not out of climate consciousness but because of the economic allure. This trend suggests that no matter the occupant of the White House, certain states may continue their renewables expansion, driven by market forces rather than federal climate mandates.

Therefore, both candidates hinged their strategies on energy independence - a term increasingly synonymous with the fossil fuel industry and either way, fossil fuels are seen as central to America’s energy mix.

Long story short: neither of them had much concrete to say on tackling climate change and, despite their clashing rhetoric, both acknowledged the importance of maintaining a domestic hydrocarbon supply. The difference? On one side it would be to ensure America’s supremacy in the global energy market, on the other to maintain energy security amid a tense geopolitical climate. However, let's be clear: Harris would unquestionably have been a far better choice for the climate than Donald Trump, at least on paper.

Now, the question raises spontaneous, with Trump back in the office, what does the future hold for the climate?

The latest IPCC report makes it clear that the goal of limiting warming to +1.5°C is no longer within reach. Current emission reduction policies are falling far short of what is necessary, and the UN warns that the planet is now on track for more than 3°C of warming.

The Republican platform entirely ignores climate change, with Trump vowing to dismantle current climate regulations to lower energy costs and combat inflation by exploiting America's so-called “liquid gold.” Additionally, given the U.S. focus on fracking and the expansion of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) - a sector where the country became the world’s top exporter under Biden - it’s evident that meeting climate goals becomes increasingly challenging.

Whether Trump will fully deliver on his promises remains uncertain. But if he does, a massive deregulation of the oil and gas sector together with the abolition of environmental standards could add four billion tons of CO₂ to the atmosphere by 2030 - equivalent to the combined emissions of the European Union and Japan – and result in global climate damages exceeding $900 billion. It’s a scenario that leaves little room for optimism.

In July, the world experienced its hottest days ever recorded, following relentless regional heatwaves, destructive wildfires and severe water shortages. The most vulnerable communities, who contribute least to climate change, are bearing the brunt of these impacts.

As global leaders gather in Baku for COP29, the stakes are higher than ever. In this crucial decade, we need leaders committed to building resilience, curbing emissions, transitioning away from fossil fuels and protecting both the environment and vulnerable communities.

Yet, we appear to be moving in the opposite direction. Looking ahead to a second Trump presidency, the prospects for climate action are worrying. With the U.S. as a leading producer of fossil fuels, Trump's rollback of environmental regulations - focusing on energy dominance - and potential withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would likely hinder global efforts to address the climate crisis.

The decisions made today will shape the future of our planet, with lasting consequences for generations to come. Now more than ever, we need voters and leaders who prioritise weighted climate action over simplistic economic gains. If we are already on track for a +3°C future, how many more tenths of a degree will a second Trump’s term add to the balance and how many more are we willing to accept?

More about this topic :

USA: a race towards energy independence

The shale boom: unlocking energy or harming the environment ?