Climate change realities, no matter who wins the presidency

Hello. My name is Peter Prengaman and I’m the global climate and environment news director for The Associated Press. Today I’m going to be talking about the upcoming U.S. presidential election and what it might mean for climate policy.

As with many other issues in this year’s U.S. elections, the candidates at the top of each ticket have vastly different approaches when it comes to climate change.

Democrat Kamala Harris calls climate change an existential threat, says that extremes in weather are accelerating and, as vice president, cast the deciding vote for the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, a major investment in clean energies like solar and wind.?

Republican Donald Trump, who has called climate change “a hoax,” attacks the Biden administration’s support for electric vehicles, claims without evidence that offshore wind hurts whales and promises to rescind money not spent from the IRA climate legislation, which he calls the “Green New Scam.”??

Clearly, in office Harris and Trump would act very differently on climate change, which is mainly caused by the burning of fuels like gasoline, natural gas and coal. ??

But a closer look reveals four realities that, taken together, present a more nuanced picture of what either of these administrations may mean for climate change.??

First, no matter who wins, and no matter what policies they try to enact, climate change will be a major issue the next four years (and decades beyond that). Recent Hurricanes Milton and Helene, which scientific studies have shown were made worse by climate change, are the latest examples of ferocious extreme weather events that are becoming more frequent as the planet warms. Early estimates put the economic damage for each storm at over $50 billion, costs that will come from government (taxpayers), insurance policies and the pocketbooks of the millions impacted. ?

Click on the video to watch ??

Regardless of whether the next administration prioritizes climate policy, major costs, as well as impacts to people, will continue, as will demands from citizens to help them adapt and confront the underlying causes of so much extreme weather.?

Second, analyzing the Harris’ campaign to date, she represents the status quo when it comes to climate.

Put another way, she has not put forward new plans or ideas to combat climate change, which would require major decarbonization across all sectors. Nor does she have specifics on helping Americans deal with it, which could include rehabbing homes to withstand storms and flooding, building sea walls to protect coastal communities or overhauling farming to ensure food security.??

Instead, on the campaign trail she touts both the IRA and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, passed in 2021. It’s fair for her to do that: both laws have significant parts that long-term will help combat and adapt to climate change. However, neither are new nor would likely be overturned under Trump.????

It’s also worth noting that Harris, who earlier in her career was a supporter of the Green New Deal, a series of policies, first proposed in 2019, to transform America’s economy to clean energy, has moved to the center on energy policy. After opposing fracking, a drilling method used to extract oil and natural gas from deep underground bedrock, during her 2020 campaign, Harris has said she would not ban it if elected president.??

Third, some changes Trump promises, which could impact the climate, are not likely to happen while others are already happening under the Biden administration and the feasibility of others is largely unknown.???

Take the IRA. Rescinding it would require approval of Congress, which will likely be closely divided. In August, a group of Republican lawmakers in districts that are benefiting from IRA monies wrote a letter to House Speaker Michael Johnson urging him not to revoke the entire IRA if Republicans win the White House.?

Take oil production. Trump likes to say, “Drill, baby, drill!” The implication is that he’ll open the country up to much more oil drilling and production. However, as Harris noted in the presidential debate, the Biden-Harris administration had overseen “the largest increase in domestic oil production in history” to reduce reliance on foreign oil.??

Take environmental regulations. In its first term, the Trump administration rolled back many environmental protections and would certainly do so in a second term. However, some major Supreme Court decisions the last few years could both help and hinder such efforts. Arguably, the most potentially significant for climate is the overturning of what was known as Chevron deference, a practice that directed courts to defer to federal agencies to write regulations that require specific knowledge, when laws passed by Congress were not specific. ?

The Supreme Court’s decision opens the door for legal challenges of federal regulations, essentially transferring power from the administrative branch to lower court judges. While conservatives backing Trump celebrated the June decision, and environmental experts believe it will lead to a weakening of regulations that combat climate change, it cuts both ways. A second Trump administration could find that weakened regulations it issues through agencies could be rejected by courts. ?

Finally, the green energy transition is well underway around the world, and that isn’t going to change regardless of who wins. ?

?In 2023, 30% of all electricity globally was generated by renewable energies. The costs have dropped dramatically and are often cheaper than fossil fuels. By some estimates, EVs will be 50% of all car sales by 2030.?

No matter where you look, how humans power the world is changing.?????????????

In his first term, Trump removed America from the 2015 Paris Agreement, a landmark act in which countries commited to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit warming. He would do that again, if reelected. ?

While American leadership on climate is closely watched around the world, America is not the world.??

John Kerry, who this spring stepped down as America’s climate envoy, recounted to colleague Seth Borenstein that he tells world leaders “no one person can reverse what the world is doing now.”?

“Why? Because the marketplace writ large all around the world, presidents, prime ministers, monarchs, kings, leaders of countries have all decided they’re moving in this direction, some at a different pace. But they are moving,” said Kerry.??

Did you know? There is no government agency that declares the winners in U.S. elections. That role has been played by The Associated Press for more than 175 years. Support AP, donate today.

Here’s what else you need to know??

?? Wildfires in the Amazon have consumed an area the size of Switzerland this year.?

?? The push for biomass energy is taking a toll on forests in Indonesia?

?? The major power blackouts in Cuba are raising questions about why the sun-drenched Caribbean island hasn’t deployed more solar?

? Climate Solutions

As Romania plans to shut down all coal operations by 2032, several organizations, with backing from the European Union, are offering coal miners reskilling courses on renewable energies.??

Many miners have been resistant to the looming changes, though experts see interest starting to pick up. This story was a collaboration between the AP and Cipher News .??

Thank you for reading this newsletter. We’ll be back next week. For questions, suggestions or ideas please email [email protected]

This newsletter was written by Peter Prengaman, news director for climate and environment, and produced by climate engagement manager Natalia Gutiérrez.

?? Want more from the AP? Sign up for our other newsletters