The question is, better by how much? This is a critical question at a time when the window for limiting global warming to 1.5°C is on the verge of closing.
For most climate observers, a second Trump presidency is a worrying prospect. In his last stint in the White House, not only did Donald Trump pull the USA out of the Paris Pact, he also cynically manipulated Americans’ anxiety about the green transition in the country. A section of the voters and the industry seemed to buy his argument that decarbonisation would lead to job losses and shutdowns.
Climate change has appeared relatively peripheral to the former president’s push for the White House this year. However, Trump has given enough evidence of sticking to old ways. He has called climate change a hoax and vowed to abolish “insane incentives” to Americans to drive green vehicles and unleash a new wave of the “drill baby, drill” sentiment for oil and gas. The former president has talked of walking away again from the Paris Pact and made his intentions clear about rolling up Biden-era green legislation. This could potentially mean doing away with the outgoing president’s flagship Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) which provides subsidies to clean energy technologies — Trump calls them “kamikaze regulations”.
In other words, another stint for Trump is terrible news for climate change mitigation. There can, therefore, be no doubt that a Kamala Harris presidency would augur better for meeting what is arguably the most difficult challenge before the world today. However, the question is, better by how much? This is a critical question at a time when the window for limiting global warming to 1.5°C is on the verge of closing.
Harris cast the tie-breaking vote on the IRA and has pledged to continue it. She has called climate change the “greatest existential threat”. The vice-president has, however, not outlined a climate agenda. This could be a strategic move to create a broad base among American voters. Herein also lies the worry for climate observers. Climate change has gained more traction among the US public since Trump last occupied the White House. According to a survey in April by the Yale Programme on Climate Change, 37 per cent of voters in the US consider the problem to be “very important”. That’s a significant number. But is it high enough to indicate that the US public feels that, as the world’s second highest GHG emitter and the biggest polluter in history, the country has a critical responsibility towards mitigating global warming? Is it high enough to indicate that people in the world’s highest per capita emitting country feel they have a moral responsibility to the rest of the world?
As an attorney general, Harris’ stint was notable for initiating action against polluting industries — notably, an $86 million settlement from Volkswagen for inserting emissions-cheating software in its cars and a criminal investigation into the Santa Barbara Oil Spill of 2015. In her campaign to become the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in 2019, she proposed 100-per cent carbon-neutral electricity by 2030. She had also talked of clamping down on the heavily polluting practice of fracking. But green activists allege that she has toned down her position considerably after becoming vice-president. In fact, even in the preliminaries for the last election, both Harris and Biden were less ambitious than Bernie Sanders on climate change.
The Biden administration, it’s correct, has done much more than any other US administration on greening the country’s economy. But it too had to temper its ambition. Biden had to go back on his campaign promise of banning new oil and gas development projects on public land. Under his watch, the US became the largest oil and gas producer in history. Biden continued Trump’s strictures on Chinese products and extended them to companies like BYD Auto, which could have competed with Tesla and made electric cars cheaper in the US market. Harris has given no evidence of being less protectionist.
The truth also is that very few Americans know how they can benefit from projects such as the IRA. The programme has been more about tax breaks to the green industry and very little money has been spent on amenities such as EV charging stations. The US is also short on specialised labour to operate the new green technologies. Like a lot of green transition advocates in the West, the Biden-Harris administration failed to take people along, and in times of crisis, tilted towards polluters. The Yale survey shows that the American public does believe that climate change is important but far less so than inflation or crime.
The Biden administration brought the US back into the Paris Pact. However, it has, at best, been only marginally better at honouring financial commitments to developing countries. The days of addressing climate change through incremental differences are over. A Trump administration could take the US backwards on global warming mitigation. That’s why a lot of environmental groups in the US have lent their support to Kamala Harris. But there’s nothing to suggest that a Harris presidency could unshackle the American political economy, allowing it to make the radical changes that climate change mitigation requires from the US.
kaushik.dasgupta@expressindia.com
