What will be the United States' position on energy and climate in the next four years, a crucial period during which it will be decided once and for all whether we can keep the 1.5°C target within reach or if we will head towards a slowed transition?
What Will Change in Energy and Climate After the 2024 U.S. Elections?
The fate of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The stance on the Paris Agreement. The role of fossil fuels and investments in oil and gas, both domestically and globally. The trajectory of competition with China over enabling technologies for ecological and digital transitions, from electric cars to controlling global supply chains of critical minerals. And the contours of competition, industrial and otherwise, with Europe. These and many other topics are at the heart of the energy and climate agenda of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the two candidates in the U.S. elections set for November 5.
What will be the United States’ position in the next four years, a crucial period during which it will be determined once and for all whether we can keep the 1.5°C target within reach or if we will head towards a slowed transition? What can we expect from a Republican candidate’s victory and that of the Democratic leader who has succeeded Biden in the race for the White House?
Kamala Harris: War on Inflation with Clean Energy
For the current Vice President, the climate crisis is an “existential threat.” The former Attorney General of California has supported the United States’ return to the Paris Agreement (after the exit decided by Trump at the end of his term in 2020).
She may have earned her more “green” credentials by backing the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the largest clean energy and climate investment law in U.S. history, with a budget of about $370 billion. She also supported the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021, a $1.2 trillion law to modernize infrastructure and incentivize the adoption of electric vehicles.
On the campaign trail, she promised to continue down this path with new investments in clean technologies for the transition. She also aims to cut bureaucracy and timelines for those considered most essential in the short term, and to invest in strengthening the grid. Harris’s keywords regarding energy policy are identical to Trump’s: they promise cheaper energy for Americans. Harris wants to achieve this by investing in clean energy, while Trump focuses on fossil sources.
Harris’s positions on energy and climate have “softened” over the years. As a senator, she supported the Green New Deal, the transition program prepared by the more radical wing of the Democrats. She was in favor of banning fracking. After crossing the threshold of the White House, she has moderated her stance on certain issues, in some cases changing them significantly. For instance, regarding shale gas: in August 2024, she reiterated that she does not want any stop (a nod to Pennsylvania voters).
In the past four years, she has approved new fossil fuel projects, including one worth $8 billion in northern Alaska. However, she supported the restrictions imposed on new licenses for only federal lands.
But, in general, Harris considers the U.S.’s dominant position in global fossil fuel production an asset that cannot be relinquished. This is especially true for keeping prices low for Americans and having sufficient resources to fuel the transition.
Donald Trump: War on Inflation with Fossil Fuels
Donald Trump continues to believe that climate science and the human role in the climate crisis are nothing but conspiracies. His agenda appears disruptive, often communicated in a brash manner. But it is little more than a return to the past.
The tycoon promises to expand and simplify fossil fuel production (as a means to reduce inflation), to review Biden’s clean energy initiatives such as the IRA, and to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement (as he did in 2020) and, possibly this time, from the UNFCCC (in which case, the U.S. would no longer participate in international climate negotiations).
Fossil fuels and dismantling Biden-era policies are the two pillars of his position. Nothing different from what was expressed during the 2016 campaign, at that time targeting Obama’s policies. What has changed is primarily the quantity of conspiracy theories with which he has seasoned his positions. For example, Trump claims that electrification of the shipping sector is impossible because electric motors would be too heavy and sink ships, or that offshore wind causes whale mortality.
According to the former president, the IRA imposes unnecessary tax burdens, and he has promised to freeze and redirect unspent funds if elected. He has pledged to eliminate particularly incentives for electric mobility (presented as an attack on internal combustion vehicles) and to eliminate the major environmental restrictions approved by Biden (including those on emissions from power plants and internal combustion vehicles). In this latter case, it is a reissue of the standoff he had with the EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from 2016 to 2020.
Compared to his first term, Trump may have more leeway to carry out his cleanup. This includes both the regulations and policies approved in recent years, as well as personnel in the U.S. public administration (one of the pillars of the now-famous “Project 2025,” an agenda prepared by ultraconservative and far-right think tanks in the U.S., largely adopted by Trump).
