top of page
Search
Human Rights Research Center
Oct 154 min read

U.S. Elections and the Issue of Climate Change

October 15, 2024



The upcoming U.S. presidential elections are a critical moment that could have rippling effects worldwide. Will U.S. foreign policy continue its road to multilateralism, or will unilateral foreign policy become the new norm? The stark differences in the foreign policy of each candidate have been continuously debated, and one such issue is commitment toward climate action. Though climate change was not at the forefront of the recent presidential debate, relevant concerns have been raised regarding the future of the environmental health of our planet.


Climate change has been a very contentious issue in recent years, with former President Donald Trump calling climate change a “hoax” in the past.[1] The greatest multilateral effort to mitigate climate change is the Paris Agreement, under the umbrella of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”), under which nations commit to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through national climate action plans called Nationally Determined Contribution (“NDC”).[2] The initial success of the Paris Agreement was attributed to the support from the U.S. and China, two of the major emitters, but the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement in 2017 under the Trump Administration[3] negatively impacted the flow of financial aid to the Green Climate Fund and reduced U.S. contributions to carbon reduction targets. Though the U.S. officially rejoined the Paris Agreement in 2021 under the Biden Administration[4], the upcoming elections will determine whether it will still be at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy.


Under the Trump administration, the U.S. saw a boost in fossil fuel industries and power plants, shifting away from the renewable energy policies implemented during the Obama administration. Various environmental protections were weakened, such as the approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which raised critical environmental concerns including increased air pollution and leaks and spills that could damage the surrounding habitat.[5] Further, the current Republican campaign seems to embody Trump’s “DRILL, BABY, DRILL” policy, which reduces the current regulations and red tape around the oil and petroleum industry.[6] The immense destruction caused by the recent hurricanes has redirected the election campaigns toward recovery efforts, making climate change a pressing issue. The rampant politicization and weaponization of the recovery efforts have cast doubt on how each party would tackle future natural disasters. A future Republican administration would likely continue to propel the domestic oil and gas industry while reducing subsidies for renewable energy industries such as solar power and electric vehicles. This, in turn, would result in an increase in trade barriers on imported climate-conscious goods to protect domestic production, like the increase in tariffs on solar cells from China.[7]


On the other hand, the Biden Administration has boosted climate change mitigation efforts, evidenced by rejoining the Paris Agreement and by enacting new climate-related policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, which sets emission reduction targets and allocated funds for green energy transition by providing subsidies for clean energy industries. However, the approval of a contentious drilling project in the Alaskan region by President Biden was certainly contradictory and heavily opposed by environmental groups who cited the devastating effects it would cause to the wildlife, surrounding communities, and the climate.[8] The current Democratic campaign is a continuation of the Biden administration’s policies, aiming to continue investments toward clean energy production. But domestic oil production has been at an all-time high under the Biden administration[9], and Vice President and presidential nominee Kamala Harris has said she would not ban fracking, indicating that a future democratic administration would somehow try to balance the green energy transition and the economic effect of the oil and gas industry.


It is evident that the diverging climate agendas are not at the forefront of the presidential election campaigns, but future administrations must address the climate catastrophe to successfully achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Critical international initiatives like the EU Green Deal directives, which aim to transform the EU into a climate-neutral status by 2050, are setting standards, forcing other countries to analyze their national efforts. It will be crucial to monitor the approach of the U.S. as its policies, or lack thereof, will have a significant global impact. The U.S. could continue the current momentum and further strengthen the domestic environmental framework through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Or it could undermine the multilateral climate agreements and subsequently hinder the sustainability efforts of other nations, especially developing countries that depend on the financial aid of the Green Climate Fund.


 

Glossary


  • Contentious: something controversial, causing or likely to cause a debate or argument.

  • Fracking: the technique used to create fractures in rock formations in the Earth for extraction of oil or gas.

  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: gasses released into the atmosphere that trap heat and contribute towards climate change.

  • Hoax: something intended to deceive or trick into believing it is genuine or true.

  • Multilateralism: alliance or cooperation between multiple countries to pursue a common goal.

  • Norm: something that is typical, standard, or usual.

  • Subsidies: sum of money granted by the government or a public body to aid or support an industry or business so that the price of a commodity can be lowered to be competitive.

  • Unilateral: an action or decision taken by or affecting one person, party, or country involved without the involvement or consultation of others.


 

Footnotes


bottom of page