When U.S. voters go to the polls in November to pick the country’s next president, they will also be choosing between two possible futures: one in which the U.S. tackles the climate crisis at home and is an active partner in multilateral efforts to do so abroad; the other in which the country retreats from global climate agreements and domestic environmental policies, and doubles down on the use of fossil fuels.
The first would represent a continuation and expansion of President Joe Biden’s agenda on climate change and energy policies, which Vice President Kamala Harris—the Democratic nominee—has adopted as her own. The second would be the agenda of former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, should he return to the White House.
A departure from current U.S. policies would have far-reaching global consequences, especially when a path toward net zero carbon emissions that avoids the worst projected climate scenarios is attainable and economically beneficial.
The Crisis
The impact of the climate crisis on the U.S. is already visible and substantial. Every year sees a rising number of weather events resulting in $1 billion or more in property damage. Americans are also coping with higher-intensity heat and more heat-related deaths. Changes in weather patterns due to the climate crisis are creating rising home insurance costs and making properties uninsurable. It’s no wonder the majority of Americans polled support climate resiliency and emissions-reducing policies.
Addressing these challenges also presents economic opportunities. Moving toward a green economy could boost global GDP by 9 percent by midcentury. By contrast, continued use of fossil fuels could create up to $1.2 quadrillion in global damages by 2100. Based on current trends, the world will need to halve emissions by 2030 to achieve global climate goals. It’s a tall order, but one increasingly possible thanks to the lower costs of renewable energy alternatives.
Climate Action
For all these reasons, the Biden-Harris administration has placed climate at the center of its policy agenda on international aid, defense, global affairs and domestic energy—all while conserving and expanding public lands. As vice president, Harris worked toward passing the transformational Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, to toughen emissions-reduction targets and boost incentives for climate action. The IRA represents the first piece of climate legislation in the U.S.—and the single largest piece of climate legislation in the world—providing incentives for investment in renewable energies and targeting resources for communities affected by pollution and climate change. The act expanded programs on climate justice and environmental justice, established tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles and created incentives for clean energy and home upgrades, among many other things.
Harris and her vice presidential running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, aim to maintain the Biden-Harris agenda on climate and energy, while expanding the IRA to include increased incentives for home upgrades and clean energy, and using climate action to create opportunities for new jobs. Much like the Biden-Harris administration, the Harris-Walz ticket is offering a holistic view of the climate crisis, and it plans to address the myriad climate challenges as economic opportunities that can be interwoven throughout domestic and global policy initiatives.
That said, the Biden-Harris agenda they will be building on is not perfect with regard to climate action. While it has brought large-scale investment in and incentives for renewable energy, it has also seen the U.S. become the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. This is largely in response to global supply chain shocks fueled by Russia’s war in Ukraine. And although Harris has continued to frame climate action and the energy transition as economic opportunities, she has highlighted natural gas as an alternative fuel. This runs counter to reports from the International Energy Agency that any more fossil fuel development will undermine global net zero goals. For the U.S. to truly lead the way on climate action, a future Harris-Walz administration should redouble efforts on the domestic energy transition to make the country a renewable energy leader, powered primarily by wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower energy sources.
Climate Chaos
By contrast, Trump’s first-term record on climate change included withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, expanding oil development on public lands and dramatically cutting environmental protections. And while the 16-page Republican Party platform this year is limited on details of how it intends to achieve its long list of desired outcomes, a 900-page playbook for a potential second Trump presidency called Project 2025 is filled with specific policy proposals and strategic guidance to achieve them. Published by the far-right Heritage Foundation and written by former members of Trump’s administration, among other authors, Project 2025 even features a foreword by Trump’s vice presidential running mate, Sen. JD Vance. As such, it serves as a view into how Trump would approach climate policy should he win the election in November.
Just as the Biden administration has taken a holistic approach to the climate crisis and energy transition policies, Project 2025 takes a similarly holistic approach to eliminating climate mitigation and adaptation as well as renewable energy investments and incentives.
Domestically, it offers a blueprint for removing references to climate change as a mission for federal government bodies, while expanding oil and gas development on public lands—including protected national parks—despite the environmental costs. In addition to ending all federally funded research based on climate science, Project 2025 calls for dismantling and privatizing parts of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, the body responsible for storm and hurricane projections and warnings. In addition to putting the NOAA’s work behind a paywall, it would require that its models exclude climate projections—putting more Americans at risk in the face of increased hurricane intensity due to warming oceans.
Project 2025 would also effectively end the IRA and associated programs for communities affected by pollution, and would eliminate tax credits and other incentives for renewable energy alternatives in favor of expanding fossil fuel production. And it would roll back environmental regulations under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, adding to the cause of the climate crisis and removing guardrails that can deal with harmful pollution.
Internationally, in addition to calling for the U.S. to once again abandon the Paris Agreement and depart from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it also calls for withdrawal from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Presently, the World Bank is the largest distributor of climate finance, amounting to $38.6 billion in 2023, and the U.S. is the bank’s largest contributor, representing roughly 17 percent of its capital financing. Washington’s departure from the bank would wreak havoc on the global climate finance needs and energy transition hopes of developing and emerging economies, likely making their climate goals and net zero targets unattainable for the foreseeable future.
The Stakes
The next U.S. president will be a climate president, whether she or he wants to or not, as the domestic consequences of the climate crisis will have to be dealt with. The question is whether she or he will also deal with the cause of the climate crisis as well as the solutions to it, both at home and abroad.
Even a president intent on being proactive on the climate crisis will face challenges. Some conservative U.S. states may refuse to implement aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act and other policies. Continued conflict in Ukraine will affect European energy supplies, as could ongoing conflict in the Middle East. And for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will continue to be a large oil and gas producer. Above all, the U.S. does not exist in a vacuum. Global shocks affect domestic policies, and domestic choices on election day could in turn dramatically affect global politics and the fate of multilateralism.
That said, a United States unmoored from global frameworks would make it less likely that climate goals are realized. And a United States in retreat on climate action would open the door for China to lead on the critical minerals and clean energy technologies that will power the coming century.
Following the U.S. presidential election in November, the nations of the world will meet at the United Nations COP29 Climate Change Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, to hash out another round of climate finance and technical goals. The message sent by the outcome of the election will set the tenor and ceiling on the ambition of the talks at Baku. And whoever occupies the White House come January 2025 will set the U.S. agenda at next year’s COP30 climate conference in Brazil, where the assembled states will decide the next round of five-year targets for cutting emissions. Above all, the election outcome in November will determine whether the U.S. remains a leader of the global energy and economic transformation underway to stave off the climate crisis—or becomes a roadblock to it.
Martha Molfetas is a senior fellow in Planetary Politics at New America working on the just energy transition, and a visiting assistant professor at Pratt Institute’s Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment, where she teaches environmental economics. She is a senior climate and energy policy consultant, writer and strategist with over 15 years of experience helping NGOs, think tanks and businesses unpack climate issues, environmental justice, resource conflicts, sustainable development and global policy issues.