by Neil Auwarter
Harris would safeguard the climate; Trump would pour gas on the problem
In principle, Americans share a desire for future generations to thrive and prosper. But when it comes to climate, only one of the major presidential candidates would put this principle into practice. Kamala Harris has a strong record of climate action and would build on the groundbreaking accomplishments of the Biden/Harris administration. By contrast, Donald Trump has promised to undo those accomplishments and solicited a billion dollars from Big Oil with the promise he will let them “drill, baby, drill.”
Harris/Walz: A track record of success advancing clean energy
Environmental protection has been a through-line in Kamala Harris’s work as a public official. While serving as California’s State Attorney General, Harris repeatedly took on Big Oil over environmental issues. In 2013 she opposed oil and gas giant Valero Energy’s plan to move 70,000 barrels of oil per day by rail from a refinery in Benicia, located in a populous region of the Bay Area. A year earlier, an oil train derailment in Lac Megantic, Canada had killed 47 residents in a giant inferno. Harris’s opposition filing argued that in the Benicia project’s environmental review Valero had “severely” underestimated the chance of an accident like the one in Lac Megantic. In the face of Harris’s opposition, Valero’s plan was defeated. In 2014 Harris again used her position as California’s top law enforcement official to oppose Chevron’s plan to expand its oil refinery in Richmond, another population center. Chevron ultimately agreed to scale down its plan and to cap the refinery’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at existing levels.
While Attorney General, Harris also sued Phillips 66, ConocoPhillips and BP over leaks in gasoline storage tanks that endangered nearby groundwater. As a result, in 2015 and 2016 Harris obtained multimillion dollar settlements from the defendant oil companies on behalf of Californians. At the same time, she joined a criminal case that resulted in the conviction of a Texas-based pipeline company responsible for the 2015 spill of 140,000 gallons of crude oil in the Pacific Ocean. She also obtained an $86 million settlement from German car manufacturer Volkswagen for secretly rigging its vehicles to cheat on emissions tests. And in one of her last actions as California Attorney General Harris filed and won a lawsuit blocking an Obama administration plan to permit fracking off the coast of California. This willingness to take on even a fellow Democrat won Harris kudos from independent environmental groups like Climate Hawks Vote, whose president RL Miller called Harris “fearless.”
Then as a U.S. Senator representing California, Harris continued pressing climate issues. In 2019 she was an early sponsor of the Green New Deal, a blueprint for transitioning the United States to 100% clean energy over a decade. But Harris’s biggest climate achievement came as Vice President, when she helped Joe Biden push through Congress the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The IRA is the most impactful climate legislation ever, with $370 billion in clean energy incentives for consumers and industry. Biden and Harris fought tirelessly for the IRA against stiff opposition in a divided Congress. Harris herself cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill. Now, two years after its passage, the IRA has already created 300,000 new jobs and generated $124 billion in investments in private industry solar, wind, power storage, clean car, and electricity grid projects. What’s more, during the Act’s first two years, inflation has plummeted from 8.3% (August 2022) to 2.5% (August 2024), defying predictions by opponents who had predicted the Act would fuel inflation.
As president, Harris would bring her climate bona fides to the planet’s most influential post. In her abbreviated candidacy, Harris has not yet put forth a detailed climate plan. But at the Democratic National Convention Harris reiterated her belief it is a fundamental right to “live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” Climate activists have expressed high expectations for a Harris presidency and have rallied in her support. Tiernan Sittenfeld, a senior staffer at the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund called Harris a “tremendous champion” on climate. “She’s totally legit,” said marine biologist and climate activist Ayana Johnson at a recent fundraising event, adding, “She’s not new to this.” Even climate groups that had withheld their support to re-elect President Joe Biden, such as the climate coalition Green New Deal Network, have swung in to support Harris.
Finally, in Tim Walz, Harris has picked a running mate with top credentials on climate. Said Jamie Henn, a climate activist who leads Fossil Free Media, “Tim” Walz had the best climate record of any of the VP contenders and has been unafraid to take on Big Oil.” While serving in Congress, Walz was a key player in provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill aimed at improving carbon sequestration in agricultural soils. More recently, as governor of Minnesota Walz has shown exceptional skill in navigating the political divide over climate. With a bare Democratic legislative majority, Walz managed to enact some of the strongest state climate policies in the nation.
Trump/Vance: ”Drill, Baby, Drill” and “Burn, Baby, Burn.”
Candidate Donald Trump’s plan on climate might be summed up by the Kris Kristofferson lyric, “Let the devil take tomorrow.” Despite a mountain of evidence that the Earth is warming dangerously, and the broad scientific consensus that our burning of fossil fuels is a major driver, Trump has called climate change a “hoax” created by China. His past and promised future presidential acts demonstrate an utter indifference to the health of the climate and the future generations that will live in it.
Trump commenced his first presidential term by appointing a small army of climate deniers and fossil fuel lobbyists to key administrative positions. Nearly one-third of Trump’s appointments to the EPA were registered lobbyists or lawyers for polluting industries. Most notably, Trump installed climate deniers Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zinke as heads of the EPA and Department of the Interior, respectively. Then when both Pruitt and Zinke resigned amid corruption scandals Trump appointed fossil fuel lobbyists Andrew Wheeler and David Bernhardt to replace them. Next Trump issued executive orders reversing more than 100 environmental rules aimed at limiting carbon emission and water pollution. Trump’s administration also took steps to hinder the burgeoning clean energy economy, including an unsuccessful attempt to eliminate the electric vehicle tax credit and slow-walking the approval process for renewable energy projects. These efforts cost the U.S. $1.1 million clean energy jobs by one estimate. Trump also withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, making it the only country to do so.
More recently, Trump has backed away from his claim climate change is a “hoax,” and in September he grudgingly conceded human fossil fuel use is a contributing factor when pressed repeatedly by debate moderator Chris Wallace. But rather than take sensible steps to protect the climate, Trump’s plan if elected to a second term is to double down on burning fossil fuels and to dismantle the Biden/Harris administration’s landmark climate accomplishments. Trump has promised to again withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement if re-elected. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention Trump led chants of “drill, baby, drill,” and pledged to undo what he called the “green new scam” of the Biden/Harris Administration. And in brazenly transactional style Trump asked oil industry executives for $1 billion in campaign contributions during a private conclave at Mar-A-Lago in April. Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump presidency, calls for gutting key regulatory agencies and procedures in order to prioritize the financial interest of the fossil fuel industry. Accordingly, Trump’s record and stated intent for a second presidential term make plain that he would sacrifice the Earth’s climate and the welfare of our grandchildren to enrich today’s fossil fuel industry and thereby regain political power.
In J.D. Vance, Trump has selected a like-minded running-mate. Like Trump, Vance has acknowledged the human role in climate change, but chosen for political expediency to do the opposite of what the crisis demands. As recently as 2020, speaking to college students, Vance lamented the “climate problem,” adding that burning natural gas “isn’t exactly the sort of thing that’s gonna take us to a clean energy future,” advocating instead the development of solar energy. But then while running successfully for an Ohio Senate seat in a campaign financed by over $300,000 from Big Oil, Vance changed his tune to the climate-denying melody of Donald Trump, saying “I’m skeptical of the idea that climate change is caused purely by man.” As a senator Vance has consistently opposed Biden/Harris administration efforts to curtail carbon emissions and incentivize renewable energy.
In a 2021 interview with Fox News Host Tucker Carlson, Vance shocked many by arguing that Americans without biological children should not be trusted with positions of power because they “don’t really have a direct stake” in the future of the nation. Vance’s attempt to paint childless Americans as indifferent to the country’s future produced a storm of outrage. But the deepest irony in Vance’s argument is that it is actually he who, like Trump, would betray future generations by enabling Big Oil and thwarting clean energy.
Predicting the climate impact of a Harris versus a Trump presidency
U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions peaked between 2005 and 2010 and have fallen each year since. And global emissions likely peaked in 2023, according to the international Climate Analytics Institute. We should take a moment to celebrate this accomplishment. The human population is now moving in the right direction, actually reducing planet-warming emissions. But the fight continues because simply reducing GHG emissions does not ensure the Earth’s warming will stop short of the critical threshold of 1.5C -2.0C (2.7F-3.6F) rise set as the centerpiece of the Paris Climate Agreement. This is because previously-emitted carbon remains in the atmosphere trapping heat for many years, regardless of subsequent reductions in new emissions. So the question is whether we can reduce new emissions and/or increase GHG sequestration rapidly enough to avoid hitting a catastrophic tipping point temperature.
Against this backdrop, climate experts paint a stark contrast between a Harris presidency and a Trump presidency. According to an analysis by Carbon Brief, under Biden/Harris administration policies the United States would by 2030 reduce its GHG emissions to 43% below 2005 levels, reasonably close to the target of a 50-52% reduction set for the country under the Paris Climate Agreement. And given Kamala Harris’s commitment to climate action, it is likely her administration would promote additional measures that would further improve the nation’s GHG emission trajectory. By contrast, a second Donald Trump administration would result in an estimated 4 billion tons of additional GHG emissions relative to the current trajectory, putting the United States at only a 28% post-2005 emissions reduction, far short of the 50-52% target. Given the country’s outsized carbon footprint, this shortfall under a Trump presidency would contribute substantially to the risk of breaching the critical 1.5C-2.0C temperature increase threshold. Further, the nation’s abdication of its leadership role in emissions reduction could create a domino effect, spurring other nations to renege on their Paris Agreement commitments. So if Trump’s calculation is that the United States can safely gorge itself on fossil fuels while free-riding on emission reduction efforts by more responsible nations, it is an immoral and potentially calamitous gambit.
One prominent climate scientist put the election choice in startling terms: Michael Mann, professor of Earth & Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, predicted that if Trump is elected and implements the energy agenda set out in Project 2025, “it would be game over for climate progress in the United States, turning the reins of our government over to the polluters,” adding “in the absence of American leadership, global efforts to reduce carbon emissions and avoid catastrophic warming will likely fail.”
Encouragingly, a majority of voters appear to have absorbed the urgency of the climate crisis, saying in polling both that developing clean energy should be a national priority and that they trust Kamala Harris more than Donald Trump to protect the climate. But the race remains very close, and the CEM Team urges all Americans to vote, to reach out to undecided voters in their lives, and if possible participate in get-out-the-vote efforts and climate activism. This is our collective chance to turn the page on a fossil fueled past and elect Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, for a future guided by the generational ethics of climate change.