Competing energy and climate visions in the 2024 presidential election
16:42 Share

You're listening to The Current, part of the Brookings Podcast Network. I'm your host, Fred Dews. Leading up to the U.S. elections in November, Brookings aims to bring public attention to consequential policy issues confronting voters and policymakers. You can find explainers, policy briefs, other podcasts, and more, plus sign up for the biweekly email at brookings.edu slash election24.

In today's episode, climate and energy in the 2024 election. There's a critical debate to be had about the level of risk and opportunities posed by a changing climate and what actions should be considered to adapt and transition to a carbon neutral and resilient future. And this is not only a domestic concern here in the U.S. The international community is watching how climate and energy issues play out in the U.S. presidential election with both major party candidates offering different visions for climate and energy policy.

To talk about the broad contours of these issues, I'm joined by Samantha Gross, Director of the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at Brookings. She's also the host of our Climate Sense podcast, season two of which will come out in a few weeks. Samantha, welcome to The Current. Hi, Fred. Nice to be here. So we've heard Donald Trump talk about his energy and climate views in various fora as he campaigns for election. And Kamala Harris, in her short time on the campaign trail, has mentioned climate a few times.

And we also have the track records of both the Trump and Biden administrations to consider. So with that in mind, I want to talk about some specific climate and energy themes to help listeners better understand what climate and energy policies could look like in either presidential administration, Harris or Trump, under the assumption that they carry forward what has already been done. So first, what would you say is the most significant impact the Trump administration had on energy and the environment during its four years in office?

Well, a lot of what you hear about what happened during the Trump administration was that he was very focused on deregulation, rolling back all kinds of regulations on energy, the environment and other issues as well.

However, I actually don't think this was the most important impact he had because his team didn't have a lot of experience in government and they actually weren't very good at the game of rolling back regulations. So I wrote back in 2020 before the last election that Trump's deregulatory efforts were frequently challenged in court and 87% of those challenges were successful.

So his bark was much louder than his bite in his deregulatory efforts. What I think was actually the biggest lingering impact was his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. He did that pretty soon after he took office. And his statements about the agreement and how it worked showed a fundamental misunderstanding about what the agreement is. He claimed that the U.S. was required to reduce emissions while China isn't.

But truthfully, each country sets their own goals under the Paris Agreement, and the goals aren't legally binding.

So really what the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement did was it harmed our reputation abroad as a reliable partner in climate action. And you've seen the Biden administration work really hard to mend that reputation during his term. Yeah, I wanted to ask about the climate agreement specifically because my understanding on the timeline is that President Trump announced his intention to remove the U.S. from it in June of 2017, but it took a few years for that to take effect.

And then it was in effect, I think, November of 2020. And then a few months later, President Biden became president and immediately had the U.S. rejoin. So did it have, beyond the reputational impact, did it have other practical effects? No, I mean, most of the impact of what the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was symbolic.

again, because the goals that each country puts forward are not legally binding. And so it's really kind of all about the symbolism and all about countries coming together to negotiate about what each country will do.

However, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of this symbolism. If the U.S. is the world's largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases and the world's second largest emitter right now behind China. And so what we do and the way we put ourselves out there really matters. And similarly, what has been the Biden administration's most significant impact on energy and the environment during its now three and a half years in office?

So unquestionably, the biggest move during President Biden's term has been the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in August of 2022. This is the largest piece of climate legislation ever passed here in the United States. It's quite a different situation than you see in Europe and some other countries. We don't have a carbon tax or a policy that includes a lot of sticks. It's really focused on carrots.

tax subsidies and loan guarantees and the like to encourage the U.S. to move to a lower carbon economy.

There's encouragement for renewable electricity development, for electric vehicles, for greener manufacturing, for development of new greener technology here in the United States, for reassuring critical minerals development. There's something in there for everyone, and it's a gigantic step towards meeting our climate goals. I think a lot of listeners will be surprised to hear that a

piece of legislation titled the Inflation Reduction Act is the largest climate bill passed. Do you have any sense about why it's called the Inflation Reduction Act and doesn't have in its title something about energy or the environment?

Yeah, I mean, there's a couple of reasons for that. The simplest reason for that is, you know, it came from its time back in 2022. When it was passed, inflation was huge in the minds of American consumers. And the other thing is the IRA just isn't about climate. It also includes a portion to reduce prescription drug prices. And so there is stuff in there that's specifically aimed at price reduction. But yeah, the name isn't super helpful in thinking about everything that it does.

So we hear a lot about so-called energy independence, the GOP platform,

And Donald Trump calls for energy dominance. And Trump has often used the phrase drill, baby, drill. And recently Kamala Harris has said that America has, quote, record energy production and we are energy independent. So is energy independence a policy goal our country should aim for? You know, energy people like myself don't love the term energy independence. It's kind of a political concept rather than an actual physical and market reality.

It's true that the U.S. is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas, but we still import oil at the same time as we export because we're swapping out for oil that is a better fit for our refining system. And so I guess you could argue that we're not really energy independent then, but that's not the real goal.

Energy people talk about, and the real goal is energy security. Do we have secure, reliable supplies of energy to fuel our economy? And the U.S. is one of the best positioned countries in the world in terms of energy security, not just because we have significant supply of oil and gas, although we do, but because we have a lot of energy.

but also because of our vast landmass with wind and solar and minerals resources. The U.S. is a very energy-secure country, and that's been true under both the Biden and the Trump administrations. I have heard recently on the campaign trail from the Trump side something about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the claim that President Biden has depleted it, the claim that a future Trump administration would replenish it. What is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and what is the

So the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created after the Arab oil embargoes back in the 1970s as a way of stockpiling extra crude oil in case of market disruptions. What a market disruption entails is really up to the president. He has the ability to release that crude oil whenever he perceives that it would be useful.

And so what that amounts to is that releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are always political because they're always a presidential decision.

Given that the U.S. is the world's largest producer of oil, it's difficult to argue that we're somehow less safe because the strategic reserve isn't as full as it was earlier. And it's also true that when Russia invaded Ukraine and not oil was released, we were really worried about supply of oil in the world. And there was a need to signal to the world that extra crude oil was available if we needed it. And so I have less problem with that.

with the use of the reserve at that time than a few other people. It's kind of what it was for. So I'm going to shift to fossil fuel alternatives, energy alternatives like wind, solar, nuclear. We hear a little bit about these on the campaign trail.

Can you talk about the directions you think a Harris administration might take in these areas versus a Trump administration? Sure. And I think I'll actually start with a note of similarity. There aren't that many of those on the issues, but this is one of them. Both future administrations would likely support nuclear power. Nuclear today provides almost 20% of U.S. electricity and almost more importantly, almost half of U.S. zero carbon electricity.

So keeping our existing nuclear fleet running safely makes a ton of sense. Also, the U.S. is a leader in developing smaller, safer, less expensive nuclear power technology. And both parties support this. And I do, too. I think it makes a ton of sense as we try to decarbonize our power sector. Where you see the big difference between the two parties and the two candidates is in renewables, wind and solar mostly.

Trump especially hates wind power, and he said some awful things about wind power over the years on the stump and other places. But Trump says that he wants to unwind the supports for renewable power generation that we see in the Inflation Reduction Act. However, that's not really something he can do alone. The IRA is a law, and it would take an act of Congress to repeal it in whole or in part.

And since many of the investments taking place under the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, they're taking place in areas represented in Congress by Republicans. So it seems politically unlikely that you're going to get a majority vote in Congress to repeal these provisions of the law.

I'd expect a lot of shouting from Trump on renewables if he's elected, contrasting with looking for ways to further support for renewables if Harris is elected. But the actual policy might not change as much under Trump as you might expect because of the politics around it and the fact that Congress would have to act.

Since we're talking about wind, I do want to shout out to another podcast that we are publishing. It's Reimagined Rural, hosted by our colleague Tony Pippa, and he recently did two episodes on wind power. One was about offshore wind in Humboldt County, California, and the other one was about onshore wind farms in Isabella County, Michigan. So I refer listeners to those

shows and reimagine rural. And again, I just remind listeners that you have your own podcast, Climate Sense, coming out for season two. Listeners can find season one on our website at brookings.edu slash climate sense podcast. Let's move on to another topic, and that's the Green New Deal.

because I'm sure we are going to start hearing a lot about it again from the Trump campaign as they challenge Vice President Harris, who co-sponsored a Green New Deal bill when she was in the Senate. What is or what was the Green New Deal? The Green New Deal is a group of policies pulled together by progressives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time alleviating other social problems like local pollution and poverty.

The Green New Deal in general is a little bit of a fuzzy concept, which is unfortunate because that makes it easier for the right to weaponize the words Green New Deal and the idea. You can call most anything the Green New Deal if you want to.

But the idea in its entirety is not on the table. When we talk about the Green New Deal, it's really more of a long wish list of what a just, fair transition to a greener economy might look like in the eyes of progressives. So it's not something you're going to see come up all at once. It's more of a pathway for a transition.

I'd like to go back to the Paris Climate Agreement, but ask you to kind of broaden the lens on your thoughts on the way that either a Harris administration or a Trump administration would approach international agreements and organizations in the realm of energy and climate. I mean, just even beyond the Paris Agreement, how would you explain or talk about the importance or not of international agreements and these relationships and thinking about energy and climate change?

Sure. So as I said earlier, when President Trump removed the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, this was really damaging to our reputation abroad. And it demonstrated that the U.S. may not be a reliable partner for moving the needle on climate change. But I want the listeners to understand that the Paris Agreement isn't everything. It's really just a framework to allow countries to make broad promises. The real action generally takes place elsewhere.

in decisions made by governments and companies about how they will actually operate in the real world, what regulations government sets or what benefits they provide for certain actions, what products that companies sell and how they are produced. Outside the Paris Agreement framework, smaller groups of countries or companies or cities or states doing business in a space can make decisions about how to move forward.

And this is really where the rubber meets the road in terms of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And these kinds of efforts can and will move forward, whether the U.S. is part of the Paris Agreement or not. It would be better if we could stay under the Paris umbrella and play nice with the rest of the world and negotiate in that way.

But not all action will stop if the Trump administration comes in and pulls us out of the Paris Agreement again, which it has said that it will do. In fact, you saw U.S. states and cities and businesses step forward during the Trump presidency to show that the U.S. was still taking action. And that would likely happen again if Trump returns to the White House. So, Samantha, as we wrap up here, what else in the energy and climate policy space do

Do you think U.S. voters ought to be thinking about as we approach the election in November? So reducing greenhouse gas emissions to deal with climate change is not just about sacrifice. And I think it sometimes gets pitched that way by politicians who don't want to make change. But we need to remember that changing the energy economy creates a ton of economic business opportunities.

I'm concerned that if we see a new Trump administration and it pulls way back on U.S. efforts in the energy transition, that we'll miss opportunities to lead in the new economy and the direction that the world is going. If we don't develop new industries in this country, we'll be behind the rest of the world. And that's not something I want to see happen. And I think it would be a danger to our future prosperity.

Dealing with climate change isn't just a challenge, it's an opportunity, and I want to see the U.S. take advantage of that.

Well, Samantha, talking to you about these issues is always illuminating. I want to thank you again for your time and expertise. My pleasure. Good to talk to you. And I'll just remind listeners again about the debut of season two of your Climate Sense podcast in a few weeks. Listeners, you can go to our website right now and listen to season one of Climate Sense podcast and make sure that it is already on your pod listening app.