The Election Couldn't Be Clearer on Climate
Harris v. Trump on the world's greatest issue: climate change
Voting has begun. While November 5 is the day of the election, early, absentee, and mail-in voting for this most polarizing of elections have all already started. I have my ballot and plan to fill it out today. Most of you reading probably already have an idea of who you are going to vote for, with only the down ballot details poised to take up your deliberative powers, but I think it’s important to reiterate the absolutely immense difference between the two presidential candidates when it comes to climate.
This is important because, even though it has dropped in societal consciousness a bit in the past couple years, climate change is undoubtedly the gravest issue facing this world. Economic concerns, culture war topics, even actual combat and war are all lower order issues on the global scale. If that seems unbelievable, remember that climate change does not spell disaster for the natural world as an isolated silo. It is currently and will continue to cause economic pain and exacerbate armed conflict.
Recently, a WWF report came out detailing that wildlife population's have dropped over 70% in the last 50 years, influenced by and leading to more severe climate change. This change makes hurricanes, like those that recently devastated parts of the east coast, more intense. It leads to warmer and drier conditions which strengthen wildfires, like those that often ravage much of California and Canada.
Emissions causing climate change continue to grow, and the alarm is essentially ringing non-stop. Although it has only come up in passing, climate change is the most important issue in this election1, in a large way because of how different the two candidates approach the issue.
Neither of the candidates are unknowns. Trump has a previous presidential term to look at, and Harris has her current vice presidential term (and yes one would likely expect some difference in a how a VP would govern as president when compared to the administration they are a part of, it’s fair to say that the difference would not be massive in size).
The easiest way to compare them is to simply list what actions and statements each has made on climate and climate change, so we can get a picture of what climate action would look like under each.
Trump
I’ll start with Trump because he is so utterly one-dimensional on the topic that no nuance is needed. Trump doesn’t believe in climate change. As President he actively worked against productive climate action, and he will do so again. His re-election would be flooding gas on our global house fire.
There are too many examples to list, but Trump has repeatedly called climate change and global warming a hoax.
He also constantly repeats a host of similar falsehoods, such as claiming “global warming” isn’t a term used anymore or that wind is the most expensive energy source.
He took the US out of global climate agreements like the (completely non-binding) Paris Accord.2
He has promised to defund environmental agencies which guard against pollution.
As prez, he “proposed a 26% budget cut to the EPA in 2020 and a 31% cut in 2019.”
He said he would rollback and divert funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest national and global investment in climate action (among lots of other things).
He opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
He signed executive orders gutting climate regulations.
In dictatorial fashion, he censored and removed mention of climate change from government documents websites.
He has said he will remove tax incentives for electric vehicles, along with introducing tarrifs that make batteries (for all things) more expensive.
He has made nonsensical statements such as: “The biggest threat is not global warming, where the ocean is going to rise one-eighth of an inch over the next 400 years … and you’ll have more oceanfront property.”3
Trump’s website says the following about energy (it does not mention climate):
President Trump unlocked our country’s God-given abundance of oil, natural gas, and clean coal. He approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access, pipelines, opening federal lands and offshore areas for responsible oil and gas production, and ending the unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord.
Author’s note: why doesn’t our God-given abundance of sun and wind matter? Not many places in the world beat out West Texas for suitability of wind turbines.
In the presidential debate, Trump didn’t mention climate change even when asked directly about it in a question. He responded to the climate question by saying he was going to tariff foreign cars (which would make cars more expensive) and then bizarrely bemoaning that Biden got “$3.5 million dollars from the mayor of Moscow’s wife.”
???
Harris
In contrast with the above, Harris has a fairly milquetoast and scientifically-informed approach to climate change, with caveats that make her climate-conscious but far from an extreme advocate.4
Under Prez. Biden, the admin Harris VPs for passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate initiative ever and a catalyst for “faster, fairer, and greener growth in the U.S. economy.”5
Importantly, Harris was the tie-breaking vote to pass the IRA in an evenly divided Senate.
While the Biden admin did cancel Trump’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil drilling, it did raise the rate of approve leases for drilling overall.
Harris attended global climate summits showing US commitment to climate action
An important part of ensuring other high-emitting countries like China are pressured to reducing their emissions
As California Attorney General, Harris went after oil companies for misleading stakeholders and oil spills.
Harris has previously been against fracking, but her campaign has said she would not ban the practice.
Harris’ website gives the following statement on the issue:
As President, she will unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis as she builds on this historic work, advances environmental justice, protects public lands and public health, increases resilience to climate disasters, lowers household energy costs, creates millions of new jobs, and continues to hold polluters accountable to secure clean air and water for all.
In the presidential debate, Harris recognized the threat of climate change and discussed investments the current admin has made to fight it, producing both gas and clean energy.
Conclusion
It is unambiguous that Trump would be a disaster for the climate. Greater warming would be locked in, causing more pain and suffering for the planet and all its people. This conclusion doesn’t even include the fact that Trump is an active threat to our democracy and the peaceful transfer of power, someone who tried to overturn the last election through a fake elector scheme and who has said he won’t commit to accepting the results of this election unless they favor him.
That attitude is completely antithetical to our nation. It is complete cynicism, so unabashedly flagrant because he knows he will still receive support in spite of it (or maybe, more correctly, because of it).
Trump is a scar and cancer of America, our worst qualities coalesced and made flesh. He will certainly do his best to destroy the natural world. That might sound hyperbolic; it is not. Through his climate inaction and active destruction, he will cement significant annihilation of our national and global environment. Every degree counts.
Harris will not be a climate savior and I’m sure will not do enough on climate, but in all likelihood she will be pretty decent on it. Some executive orders, EPA regulations, and, with support, a few bills that promote clean energy are likely.
That’s the election. Pretty decent vs complete destruction.6
Ok, it might actually be a toss-up between CC and the threat to our democracy.
Biden brought us back in; Trump would take us back out if re-elected.
Note only is the rate here wrong, but encroaching sea levels do not create more oceanfront property.
Which she should be (but that likely would not be politically rewarded to campaign on)
Despite the seemingly social language, that quote comes from an econ publication.
I ain’t proof-reading this; send!