U.S. presidential candidates divided on environmental policy
The future of American policy and global action on climate change hinges entirely on the November presidential election.
In a nutshell
- A gulf exists between climate policies of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris
- Harris would keep the status quo and potentially seek new targets
- Trump would withdraw from the Paris Agreement and multilateral deals
Former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris differ on many policies, among them issues related to how climate change should be addressed. The November election will determine how United States policy will play out in international environmental negotiations over the next four years. In turn, global climate change mitigation efforts and financing models hang in the balance.
Trump vs. Harris
Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris’s views on climate change policy diverge, both as regards domestic issues and how each would coordinate with other countries across the world stage. Throughout her government career, Ms. Harris has prioritized climate change legislation and regulations that some critics have described as cumbersome and unnecessarily expensive for U.S. taxpayers. Mr. Trump, in line with his “America First” policies, has favored American sovereignty and economic cost consideration over engaging in what he sees as feckless international agreements.
Ms. Harris has a lengthy record on climate change policy. As a U.S. senator, she was an original co-sponsor of the controversial 2019 “Green New Deal” which sought to transition the U.S. to 100 percent clean energy within a decade. Ms. Harris also supported the radical idea of eliminating the filibuster in the Senate so that the Green New Deal could pass by a mere majority vote. As Vice President, she cast the deciding vote in the Senate to pass the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – considered by some to be the “most far-reaching climate law in history.”
In stark contrast, former president Trump opposes all of the above and will likely seek to roll back a range of climate policies and regulations enacted during the presidency of Joe Biden. For instance, in March 2024, the Trump campaign said that Mr. Trump “will repeal Joe Biden’s radical [electric vehicle] mandates and cut costs to reduce inflation and get our economy booming again.”
In addition to starkly different views on domestic climate change policy, the candidates are deeply divided on the merits of various international climate policies and agreements.
Membership in climate treaties
A second Trump administration will approach international climate agreements in a very different manner than a Harris administration. Mr. Trump’s skepticism of climate change treaties extends back to his first White House term (2017-2021). He has signaled that a second term would focus primarily on policies that secure America’s southern border, stimulate the economy and strengthen U.S. national defense, among other priorities. This would be in line with his past actions.
On June 1, 2017, acting on pledges made in his first presidential campaign, Mr. Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, stating:
Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.
Since the prior administration under President Barack Obama did not treat the Paris Agreement as a treaty requiring ratification by the Senate, President Trump was free to withdraw from the Agreement, and he will likely do so again if reelected this November. Indeed, the Trump campaign has already confirmed his intention to withdraw from the agreement for a second time if reelected.
It is also possible, but less likely, that Mr. Trump would withdraw the U.S. from the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – the underlying treaty that resulted in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and then the Paris Agreement. The Trump campaign has not stated whether such a withdrawal is under consideration, but withdrawing from the UNFCCC would send the strongest signal yet that the U.S. is no longer going to be part of international climate change negotiations.
Facts & figures
Major global environmental agreements
Montreal Protocol, 1987
Every country in the world ratified the treaty, which required them to stop producing substances that damage the ozone layer, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992
Ratified by 197 countries, including the United States, UNFCCC was the first global treaty to explicitly address climate change. It established an annual forum, known as the Conference of the Parties, or COP, for international discussions aimed at stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Kyoto Protocol, 2005
The Kyoto Protocol was the first legally binding climate treaty. It required developed countries to reduce emissions below 1990 levels and established a system to monitor countries’ progress. This treaty did not compel developing countries, including major carbon emitters China and India, to take action. The United States signed it in 1998 but never ratified it and later withdrew its signature.
The Paris Agreement, 2015
This requires all countries to set emissions-reduction pledges with the goals of preventing the global average temperature from rising 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels and aims for global net-zero emissions in the second half of the century.
Unsurprisingly, the Biden-Harris administration’s international climate agenda is the polar opposite of Mr. Trump’s. On President Biden’s first day in office, he began the process of recommitting the U.S. to the Paris Agreement. In addition, President Biden personally attended COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, and COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
Read more on environmental challenges and solutions
- Africa shows ESG is near an adapt-or-die moment
- Climate, science and the dangers of ‘no alternative’
- Can the West and China work together on climate change?
A Harris administration would continue President Biden’s support for the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC process. At COP28 in Dubai, Ms. Harris pledged that the U.S. would contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund to support climate action in developing countries, substantially adding to the $2 billion previously delivered by the U.S. to the fund.
More of the same can be expected if Ms. Harris wins the White House in November, as she will place climate change policy at the center of her domestic and international agenda.
Funding negotiations on hold
The possibility of Mr. Trump’s return to the White House, however, has already caused major elements of international climate negotiations to grind to a halt. His potential reemergence on the scene hung like a “specter” over the June 2024 negotiations in Bonn, Germany.
As is often the case with climate negotiations, the sticking point comes down to money – how much “climate finance” the U.S., the European Union and the rest of the developed world are willing to pay to developing countries for alleged economic losses due to climate change.
The amount of money being negotiated in the COP process is significant, to say the least. Some developing countries proposed an annual target for “loss and damage” financing in excess of $1 trillion.
As is often the case with climate negotiations, the sticking point comes down to money.
But at the Bonn meeting, delegations from other developed nations were reticent to pledge loss and damage funding, knowing full well that a second Trump administration would not support large commitments of U.S. taxpayer dollars. According to one negotiator from a European country, “We have to factor in a possible change in the U.S. president and what that would mean in terms of climate finance.”
The next major meeting of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, COP29, is set to open in Baku, Azerbaijan, on November 11, just six days after the U.S. election. The stakes could not be higher for international climate change negotiations.
Scenarios
There will be significant differences to international climate change policy and practice depending on whether the former president or current vice president wins the election.
Scenario A: Harris wins in November
A Harris victory will result in a continuation of the status quo but with potentially more ambitious emissions and funding targets, tempered by the likely reality of a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and possibly a Republican-controlled Senate.
Membership in international climate agreements
Certain: U.S. remains in major multilateral agreements
A President Harris is certain to affirm the Biden administration’s decision to remain in the Paris Agreement and will continue to robustly participate in the UNFCCC process, sending large, senior delegations of U.S. officials (likely including Ms. Harris herself) to COP meetings and preparatory sessions.
Likely: President Harris maintains current policies
New nationally determined contributions (NDC), each country’s commitments to reduce emissions and adapt to global warming, are due in early 2025, so expect a Harris administration to maintain at least the current targets and policies set by the Biden administration.
Less likely: President Harris expands reach of U.S. climate goals
It is possible, but not likely, that Ms. Harris would pursue a significantly more aggressive NDC. But such an action would likely result in extensive litigation and could also endanger any future reelection campaign. A Harris administration may vigorously pursue other agreements related to climate change or the environment in the U.S. Senate, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, though this is less likely due to political considerations. While a Harris administration is likely to transmit the new High Seas Treaty (signed by the U.S. in September 2023) to the Senate, ratification is unlikely due to the razor-thin margins in the Senate.
Climate finance
Likely: U.S. cooperates with the EU on moderate ‘loss and damage’ funding
A Harris administration will be far more amenable than a Trump administration to providing funding for loss and damage climate financing and will work closely with EU countries and other developed nations to negotiate acceptable targets. Developing nations may well believe that the new U.S.-supported targets are too low, but at the same time, such financing would not even be on the table if the election went the other way.
Unlikely: The U.S. boosts climate financing
Climate finance commitments by the U.S. are unlikely to exceed 10 figures. Domestic politics will limit Ms. Harris’s ability to secure significant climate financing. She will need to request any loss and damage funds from a deeply divided, and likely Republican-controlled, House of Representatives. The expectations of developing nations for major U.S. financial commitments should be tempered by that political reality.
Scenario B: Trump wins in November
A Trump victory will radically change the current U.S. posture on climate policy, as Mr. Trump again pursues an “America First” policy that emphasizes restoring the U.S. economy and deemphasizes international climate goals.
Membership in international climate agreements
Likely: The U.S. again pulls out of the Paris Agreement, scales back delegations
A second Trump administration will likely result in a second U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, as pledged during Mr. Trump’s current campaign. U.S. government delegations sent to COP30 through COP33 will certainly not feature President Trump and may not even include senior government officials such as the secretary of state. As was the case during his first White House term, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will essentially nullify President Biden’s 2021 NDC, which set a goal to reduce U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent by 2030.
Less likely: The U.S. withdraws from the UNFCCC altogether
Although it would be the fastest and most efficient way to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, it is less likely that Trump will withdraw the U.S. from the UNFCCC. Unlike the high-profile Paris Agreement, the UNFCCC has not become an issue in the current presidential campaign, and by itself does not require the U.S. to meet specific emissions targets.
Unlikely: Ratification of new climate agreements
New or unratified climate treaties are going to be very low on the list of priorities in a second Trump administration. Agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea are unlikely to receive any attention in the U.S. Senate.
Climate finance
Unlikely: U.S. continues to provide major international climate financing Consistent with the expectation that Trump will withdraw (again) from the Paris Agreement, it is unlikely that a second Trump administration will support climate financing in any significant amount, if at all. Indeed, at a December 2023 campaign event, Mr. Trump said that if reelected “all climate reparation payments will be canceled immediately,” in reference to the $3 billion pledged by Vice President Harris in Dubai.
For industry-specific scenarios and bespoke geopolitical intelligence, contact us and we will provide you with more information about our advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
