All eyes are on the US elections in November this year, with the decision of the 160+ million voters in the country to play a major role in determining the world’s trajectory towards a net-zero future.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), even with current pledges for emissions reduction, the planet is hurtling towards a rise of up to 2.9°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. This would be catastrophic, and, one report indicates that the crisis could cost $178trn in global economic loss by 2070.
Projected 2030 emissions must fall by an additional 28-42% to limit warming to 2°C, per UNEP estimates. This means that global decisions on decarbonisation in this decade will have ramifications for this century of humanity.
US: the world’s largest fossil fuel producer and historic emitter
The US’ actions are central to the global green transition. Not only is it the world’s largest fossil fuel producer in 2024 but it is also responsible for the largest share of global historic emissions since 1850 – around 17%, according to UNEP.
In addition, it remains the country with the second-highest emissions globally today, with per capita emissions more than double the world average of 6.5 tons (5.9 tonnes) of CO2 equivalent.
Crucially, as the world’s richest country with close to $29trn in annual GDP, it also has the monetary capacity to fund infrastructural changes required for the green transition.
The Biden administration oversaw progress on the green front, with the implementation of the US’ most significant climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022. The bill contains around $369bn in climate investments, and tax credits to promote clean energy and reduce emissions may reach $780bn, according to US non-profit the Electric Power Research Institute.
Nevertheless, despite crucial global pledges to decarbonise, the Biden administration has also issued 1,453 new oil and gas licenses since coming to power in 2020, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development. This is half of the total licenses issued globally and 20% more than those issued during Trump’s presidency.
The US is also not on track to meet its national targets under the Paris Agreement, according to UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report 2023.
The two US presidential candidates who stand at the centre of this tension, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, are poised to shoulder significant responsibility for world climate impacts this century but could not be more different in their policy choices.
Trump dismisses ‘green new scam’
Under a Trump administration, net-zero goals are expected to be in severe jeopardy.
During his former presidency, Trump not only reversed more than 100 Obama-era environmental protections but also pulled the US out of the landmark 2016 Paris Agreement, through which countries are working together to keep global emissions below the threshold of a 2°C rise.
During his campaign for re-election, Trump has dismissed rising environmental regulations as a “green new scam” and made no secret of his intentions to support the fossil fuel industry yet again.
Speaking to a Fox News journalist at a town hall event in Iowa, he shared plans to expand oil drilling on “day one” and also promised to “drill, baby, drill” in his presidential nomination speech on 18 July.
Moreover, at an April dinner at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, he was reported to have asked oil industry executives to donate $1bn to aid his presidential campaign, citing benefits for them on avoided taxation and regulation as he plans to reverse environmental rules.
The projections are dire. According to analysis by Carbon Brief, a climate policy and science website, Trump’s likely policies would add four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, which would cause global climate damages worth more than $900bn, as per the latest US government evaluations.
EV transition at risk
Transport is the largest source of US emissions, with road vehicles accounting for the majority.
As part of the IRA, there are tax credits worth $7,500 each to buy electric vehicles (EVs), and Biden had also announced regulations for tailpipe emissions, which necessitate 56% reduction in fleetwide average carbon emissions by 2032.
However, Trump said in his nomination speech that he would clamp down on EV-friendly policies from his first day in office, promising to “end the electric vehicle mandate”.
Ken Riddell, senior manager of Americas powertrain forecasts at GlobalData, tells Energy Monitor: “Should former President Trump return to the White House, we expect him to take actions similar to his first term.”
These actions, he explains, include significantly easing the emissions regulations, especially for annual light vehicle fleets, and increasing fuel economy targets.
“Instead of the 13% reduction in the fleet CO2 output, a far less aggressive annual reduction around 2-3% per year is expected, essentially erasing what has been touted by many republicans as a battery electric vehicle mandate,” says Riddell.
“It is also expected that he would again work to negate California’s ability to enforce emissions standards that are more challenging than the national standard. This would disallow the state’s pursuit of only allowing zero-emission light vehicles to be sold in the state starting in the 2035 model year.”
Riddell forecasts that original equipment manufacturers would then not be pushed to sell high volumes of BEVs, which are currently already far more expensive than a comparable combustion-powered vehicle.
“BEV adoption would slow in the US, with the automakers being able to utilise less expensive technologies to meet regulations,” he explains.
Italian–American conglomerate Stellantis, for example, has goals to become carbon net zero by 2038, with 50% new light vehicle sales in the US being BEV by 2030. However, CEO Tavares has said that the target may not achieved if the government policy and public adoption rates change.
In addition, Trump’s expected curbs on the Environmental Protection Agency’s power could put its legislation on forever chemicals at risk too.
Some energy transition technologies are resilient to political change
Francesca Gregory, senior energy transition analyst at GlobalData, tells Energy Monitor: “It is no surprise that Trump has zeroed in on this particular topic, with EV policies acting as a significant bone of contention between the federal government and automakers in recent years.”
She adds that while Trump’s narrative about the ‘green scam’ and expanded drilling would raise concerns about federal support for energy transition technologies more widely, there is likely an element of political rhetoric as Trump pursues his campaign trail.
“Although Trump has heavily slated the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, earlier this year the American Petroleum Institute (a significant Republican party donor) went on the record stating the appeal of production tax credits for technologies such as low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture for Republican states,” says Gregory.
She highlights blue hydrogen and carbon capture and storage technologies as significant opportunities for product diversification within the country’s oil and gas sector.
Gregory adds: “This acts as an important insurance against decreasing global oil demand, with the International Energy Agency predicting demand will start to level off before the end of the decade. Therefore, while specific policies that are considered to disadvantage US-based industry will be vulnerable to overturn in a Trump victory scenario, policies levied at other energy transition technologies that pose significant business opportunities will be much harder to repeal.”
Harris hailed a ‘climate champion’
Harris, on the other hand, has a long history of enforcing climate action and is widely expected to carry on the legacy of the IRA.
She was an early co-sponsor for the Green New Deal, a comprehensive proposal for systemic decarbonisation in the US, including creating a 100% renewable energy grid and millions of green jobs.
Most notably, ahead of her brief presidential election campaign back in 2019, Harris unveiled a $10trn plan to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2045, including policies such as working to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.
She also pledged to tax polluting industries and said she would establish an independent Office of Climate and Environmental Justice Accountability that would represent and support frontline communities, and monitor government compliance.
“Success in the presidential election in November would likely lead to Harris continuing to build on this existing climate legislation and defend against Republican criticism,” says Gregory.
“However, a particular focus on subjects such as increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the US power mix by expediting permitting and grid connection processes as well as increasing energy efficiency through equipment such as heat pumps is likely.“
Former Vice President Al Gore, who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in climate activism, has endorsed Harris’s campaign, calling her “the kind of climate champion we need in the White House”.
Previously, Harris, as California’s Attorney General, had sued the Obama administration for plans to frack the state’s coastline and also sued ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Phillips 66. As Senator, she had also introduced environmental legislation bills, focussed on clean drinking water and improving environmental justice.
“As district attorney, to go after polluters, I created one of the first environmental justice units in our nation,” Harris said at her first campaign event last week after being endorsed by Biden.
Nevertheless, in a reversal from her previous stance, an official from her campaign told newspaper The Hill last week that she would not seek a fracking ban if elected.
While it remains to be seen how the country’s environmental landscape will change in the next term, it is clear that the decisions of the US and major emitters in this decisive decade will have long-term implications for life on Earth.
