These are anxious times for the climate community, watching with bated breath to see who will become the next US president. The last time Donald Trump held office, he withdrew from the Paris Agreement and stalled efforts to curb domestic emissions. But would Kamala Harris take a radically different approach from Trump on climate issues?
Since 1992, when the first global climate agreement was signed by George HW Bush, a Republican president, Democrats — often considered pro-climate — have held the White House for 20 years, compared to 13 years for Republicans. Yet, US emissions are currently only 3% below 1990 levels, meaning they have remained virtually unchanged. In contrast, the European Union, which had similar international commitments, has reduced its emissions by more than 30%.
So why has the US historically struggled to address the climate crisis, both domestically and internationally? And what does the future hold? To answer this, it’s crucial to grasp a few key facts.
Historically, the US has been the largest consumer of fossil fuels. For the past six years, it has also been the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. In 2023, it outproduced Saudi Arabia and Russia — ranked second and third respectively — in oil. Similarly, it produced more gas than Russia and Iran combined, the next two largest producers.
Now, the Republican Party, under Trump, has positioned itself as a party of climate denial. Trump’s vice-presidential nominee, JD Vance, did not even acknowledge during the debate that carbon emissions drive climate change. Trump has repeatedly claimed that wind farms cause cancer and that solar panels are wasteful, while promoting the idea that increased oil and gas production is crucial for creating jobs, reducing inflation, and “Making America Great Again”
The political calculus behind this is straightforward: most oil- and gas-producing states are either Republican or key battlegrounds. Texas, the largest oil and gas producer, has voted Republican since 1980, and Trump won the state in both 2016 and 2020. Similarly, Louisiana, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Colorado are all large oil and gas producers and lean Republican. No Republican candidate can afford to alienate these states by opposing fossil fuel interests.
On the other hand, Democrats attempt to walk a fine line with an “all-of-the-above” energy policy. They advocate renewable energy (RE) and electric vehicles (EVs) but remain committed to oil and gas production. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have boasted that their administration has overseen record oil and gas production. Harris has even reversed her previous stance on fracking, now supporting large-scale shale gas extraction in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Winning Pennsylvania is often pivotal in securing the White House, which pressures both parties to support fracking.
In essence, the influence of the oil and gas industry on US elections is so strong that neither party can afford to oppose it outright. As a result, under both Republicans and Democrats, the US will continue to produce and consume large quantities of oil and gas, making it difficult to reduce emissions.
Additionally, Republicans have framed climate change in terms of economic nationalism. During the debate, Vance argued that because the US economy is “clean” in terms of emissions per unit of GDP, ramping up domestic energy production and manufacturing would help combat the climate crisis by reducing reliance on imports from “dirtier” countries like China. Interestingly, Democrats have subtly supported this position, reflecting a broader bipartisan shift toward protectionist economic policies.
Overall, the trajectory of US climate politics in the coming years — whether under Harris or Trump — will likely emphasise domestic oil and gas production alongside protectionist economic policies. Kamala Harris may promote a pro-climate agenda, incentivise RE and EVs, and engage internationally, but these efforts are unlikely to decarbonise the US economy at the required speed and scale. Trump, conversely, will likely continue an anti-climate stance, focusing on fossil fuel expansion. While the US may struggle more under his leadership on climate mitigation, the difference may ultimately be marginal. But this political economy of fossil fuels is not unique to the US; it is playing out, or will play out, in all fossil fuel-dependent countries.
Every nation will eventually need to eliminate or drastically reduce its production of fossil fuels to address the climate crisis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that this must be done by 2050. To meet this target, developed nations must phase down fossil fuels early, while developing countries have a slightly longer timeline. While there is now international consensus on this, as reflected in last year’s agreement in Dubai, the economic and political challenges remain daunting.
Just as the US struggles with the political and economic influence of fossil fuel-dependent states, democracies like India will face similar challenges once the discussion on phase-down begins. States like Assam, Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and West Bengal rely heavily on fossil fuels for jobs and revenue. These states collectively hold nearly 200 parliamentary seats, and US-style politics around fossil fuels could potentially play out in India as well. Meanwhile, countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia face different challenges, as they depend on oil and gas revenue for their very survival.
This is where the concept of a “just transition” becomes critical. A just transition means that countries must diversify their economies away from fossil fuels in a way that doesn’t unduly harm jobs, revenues, or businesses. It ensures that workers, communities, and industries affected by the fossil fuel phase-down are provided support to make the transition. This is the only concept that can bring Republicans and Democrats together in the US and unite political parties in other democracies to solve the climate crisis. The US will need to ensure a just transition for Texas, just as India must do the same for Jharkhand. Achieving this will require more than technology; it demands a socioeconomic transformation involving careful planning, massive investments, and global cooperation. Without this, the world will continue to falter in its fight against the climate crisis, just as the most powerful economy has done over the past three decades.
