On energy and climate, Trump and Harris disagree to varying degrees

Tis next The President will inherit the most ambitious climate policies in American history. Under Joe Biden, three laws have been put in place – chips Science Act, bipartisan infrastructure legislation, and especially the Inflation Control Act (Irish Republican Army) – It has developed a comprehensive industrial policy that seeks to support an ambitious process of decarbonizing the economy. Leftists, who believe the investments are not ambitious enough, hope President Kamala Harris will go further. Conservatives are confident that re-elected President Donald Trump will destroy everything.

It’s useful to put aside campaign rhetoric to ask: Will President Harris be greener than Biden? Can a re-elected President Trump actually kill Biden’s clean energy policies?

Let’s look first at Biden’s energy legacy. Goldman Sachs believes that if it is kept in place,… Irish Republican Army It alone will generate more than $3 trillion in public and private investment in clean technologies by 2030. But Biden has also overseen a boom in fossil fuels. His administration encouraged oil and gas production to compensate for the effects of the war in Ukraine and the Middle East on energy markets, and as such, America has now become the largest exporter of oil and gas in the world.

Mrs. Harris cast the deciding vote in favour Irish Republican Army It raised hopes on the left because of its past greenness. As California’s attorney general, she sued energy companies over pipeline leaks and offshore oil development. During her failed presidential bid in 2019, she supported a ban on fracking and the Green New Deal. Some environmentalists dream that, if elected, she might declare a national “climate emergency” to promote more ambitious measures than Biden did.

However, there are clear signs that Harris will embrace both clean energy and fossil fuels. She now openly supports domestic oil and gas production and hydraulic fracturing, and she openly supports such green concerns as nuclear power and reforming the permitting process (which would allow all kinds of new energy infrastructure to be built more quickly).

If a Harris presidency is likely to provide continuity, could a Trump presidency represent a radical reversal? While in the White House, Trump embraced fossil fuels and tried to roll back environmental regulations. He may again attack the EPA and its regulation of emissions from tailpipes and power plants, but his record in the courts last time was poor, and a recent Supreme Court ruling has limited the interpretive powers of agencies like Environmental Protection Agency It will complicate matters. During this year’s campaign, Trump’s energy slogan was “Drill, baby, drill!” He mocked climate science and electric vehicles (Eves). The leaders of major oil companies have publicly supported him. Thanks to Trump’s past success in appointing conservative judges, the courts may appear more favorably on his agenda. However, experts agree that wholesale elimination of… Irish Republican Army Highly unlikely.

That’s the most likely impact, says Jeff Navin of energy consulting firm Boundary Stone Irish Republican Army Tax exemptions. But excluding credits for purchase EveMost of them appear to be safe. Nearly four-fifths of the appropriations flow to Republican districts, which explains why 18 Republican members of Congress in August announced their opposition. Irish Republican Army cancellation. Big oil companies love to support hydrogen and carbon capture. Trump’s former energy secretary, who now runs the largest utility lobby, said his priority is defending credits for his industry.

The picture is less clear with regard to spending. If the money has not yet been disbursed, Trump could make it difficult for agencies to do so. However, officials are rushing to get the remaining funds out the door. The third category, discretionary funds, is easier to chew. The Energy Department has not spent much of the more than $300 billion allocated to help scale up new climate technologies. Trump could theoretically cancel this lending, although energy industry lobbyists would also oppose this in practice.

The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement has not significantly delayed international efforts. Trump may undermine the Biden administration’s pledges to reduce methane emissions, but such acts of self-isolation would not come as a shock abroad. At home, a Trump victory would not only mean a collapse in climate efforts, but it would give Wall Street pause. Consulting firm Wood Mackenzie believes that a Trump presidency would reduce investment in America’s energy transition by $1 trillion by 2050, to nearly $6 trillion. So the choice voters will make in November is either to stabilize America’s current pace of decarbonization or to slow it. In either case, the direction of travel will remain largely unchanged.■

Stay up to date on US politics with The we In short, our daily newsletter with quick analysis of the most important election stories, Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist on the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.