Political and scientific news at the moment can seem like they are coming from parallel worlds. On the one hand science reporting is full of coverage of the – mostly disastrous – consequences of a hotter world. What gets published to a non-scientific audience is a tiny fraction of the research reaching the same conclusions. Meanwhile these same issues are barely featuring in a furiously contested US election.

There’s only so much one outlet can do to change this, but IFLScience decided it was time to try to bring these worlds together by asking where the candidates stand on climate-related issues.

With a third of the Senate, the whole of the House, 11 governorships and tens of thousands of downballot races on the line, we have no hope of covering them all. We encourage our readers in the USA to look to local media or the candidates’ own websites for their stances, although the party platforms we refer to here are often relevant.

Instead, we’re just looking at the presidential candidates. Who sits in the White House is not the only thing that will determine US climate-related policies for the next four years. Congress blocked most of President Biden’s agenda for almost two years until a change of heart by Senator Joe Manchin let a lot of it through. State and even local governments can make a big difference as well. Nevertheless, the Presidency has the potential to have a huge impact on whether the fears nearly all climate scientists are expressing will come true.

Renewable energy

A quarter of US greenhouse emissions come from burning coal and methane to make electricity. With no nuclear power stations under construction, renewable energy is by far the most likely way to get that down.

Donald Trump has a long history of opposition to wind power, both fighting against a specific farm near his Scottish golf course and restricting it as president. His views have not changed. On the campaign trail he has been spreading the claim that offshore wind farms kill whales. Not only is there no evidence this is true, but being struck by boats is now one of the largest killers of whales. With 40 percent of global cargo shipping now devoted to moving coal, oil, and gas around, anything that replaces fossil fuels benefits whales, as well as the climate. Trump has been less vocally opposed to solar, but did little to support it as president and has given no evidence of new enthusiasm.

The Democrat Policy Platform makes numerous references to promoting solar, wind, and battery power both to reduce carbon emissions and to eventually bring electricity prices down. For example, it says, “Democrats will unite against the Republican war on clean energy, blocking their obsessive attempts to repeal President Biden’s clean energy investments.” 

However, neither the platform not Harris independently have provided much detail about how they would do this, spending more time pointing to the Biden administration’s record. Nevertheless, they have a lot to point to. It is not widely recognized how much the 2022 passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has spurred investment both in renewable energy construction, and in building factories so future solar panels are made in America. The biggest beneficiary has been battery manufacturing, offering the chance to store the energy produced by solar and wind for times when neither is available. Consequently, America is now getting more power from wind than coal in some months. 

Harris’s policy book points out numerous examples of successes stemming from this legislation, and promises more of the same. Programs such as Solar for All are targeting assistance at low-income earners so that development that benefits the fight to save the planet reduces poverty at the same time. The resulting ramp-up in low-carbon energy is only just starting, so either candidate will almost certainly preside over a cleaner electricity grid; the question is whether they will help or hinder that trend continuing. Having cast the deciding vote for the IRA in her role as Vice President, Harris can claim some of the credit.

Moreover, while a senator, Harris introduced the Climate Equity Act, which would have transformed America’s energy industry while protecting the most economically vulnerable and she ran hard on promoting renewable energy plans in 2019.

One thing Trump and Harris agree on is higher tariffs on imported solar panel imports. In the short term this will raise the cost of renewable energy and therefore slow its growth. Advocates hope that by encouraging a local industry, tariffs will create a stronger constituency for renewable energy so it will grow more down the track.

Transport

Transport is now America’s largest source of emissions at 28 percent, thanks primarily to dependence on highly polluting internal combustion vehicles for cars, trucks, and planes.

In his first term Trump’s policies were unhelpful to electric cars, and he has opposed regulations of car pollution. This may change now that Elon Musk is one of his largest donors and promoters. However, all other cleaner forms of transport appear to be on his list of enemies. 

Project 2025, a detailed set of policies created by former Trump staffers and lobby groups, condemns federal government support for new rail lines and streetcars. Trump did briefly sponsor a cycling race in 1989-90, but otherwise his only commentary on cycling has been to mock Biden for riding one, and he’s similarly negative about public transport.

Although Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025 in general since some other aspects became recognized as unpopular, he has not disavowed these or other climate related aspects. Several authors remain part of his team and will probably have senior roles in his administration. Moreover, Trump has denounced what he calls Biden’s “kamikazee climate regulations” – an interesting choice of words, since an absence of action on climate, rather than efforts in that direction, that would lead to certain death.

Harris has signed on to her party’s commitment to eliminate all emissions from the transport sector by 2050. The prospects of achieving this, particularly with regard to air travel are questionable, but under Biden there have been major initiative to build infrastructure suited to lower emissions, as well as encouraging the quadrupling of electric vehicles, while also providing ways to discourage the most polluting cars and trucks. Reaching the goal on land, if not in the air, would be a globally significant achievement.

A lot of specific programs go into this. For example, Harris has been a proponent of policies to subsidize electric school buses for districts that struggle with the higher upfront costs. Besides eliminating millions of tons of diesel emissions, these buses are increasingly being used to make communities more resilient, including from climate change-induced disasters, and to facilitate the addition of more solar power to the grid.

Fossil fuel extraction

Harris has disappointed many supporters by reversing her previous opposition to fracking, which is now the primary way in which oil and methane are extracted in the US. The fracking boom has accelerated the decline in coal, but also slowed the growth of non-polluting technologies.

The Democrat platform is very quiet on these issues, other than references to a “just transition” away from fossil fuels so that alternative employment is made available to workers in these areas. In line with recent evidence that liquified natural gas exports are far more polluting than previously recognized, Joe Biden paused consideration of new export terminals.

In 2016 Trump campaigned with signs proclaiming: “Trump digs coal” and promised to bring back coal mining jobs. That certainly didn’t happen in his first term, and is unlikely to this time either. Coal in the United States is too expensive to compete with either gas or renewables, leading to plants and mines shutting down; no president is likely to be able to change that. Nevertheless, coal declined more slowly during Trump’s first term than would have happened otherwise, at great cost to both the climate and the lungs of those living near coal plants.

“Drill, baby, drill” is a common chant at Trump rallies, and he has promised to repeal parts of existing climate laws to increase access to polluting fuels.

Trump has vowed to approve the LNG terminals “on my first day back”. In light of his record of opening up large previously preserved areas to mining and drilling, the promise is credible.

Land use and agricultural emissions

Agriculture accounts for 10 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions, the largest source aside from burning fossil fuels. Rewilding, such as the return of forests, represents the only major sink, absorbing close to a billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year.

The Democrat platform sets the goal of making; “Our farm sector the worlds first to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.” It promises to continue existing programs to pay farmers to adopt practices that help their land sequester carbon and improve soil health. “Already, over 80,000 farms covering 75 million acres have adopted these practices,” it reports.

The platform commits to protecting 30 percent of America’s land and waters by 2030, noting the 41 million acres Biden placed under protection is the most of any President.

Wetland restoration and expansion of capability to fight wildfires are both mentioned, and while reducing carbon emissions may not be the primary goal, it is likely to be one effect.

Meanwhile Trump was the only president who removed protection from more public lands than he designated.

Attitude to climate science

Harris acknowledged the threats to the climate in her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, listing, “The freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis” as one of the “fundamental freedoms” that need to be addressed. This is repeated on her website.

The Democrat platform also refers to the need to address the aspects of climate change that cannot be avoided, for example by providing cooling centers for those that might otherwise suffer heat exhaustion.

Trump has referred to climate change as “one of the great scams of all time”, including after Hurricanes Helene and Milton had devastated large parts of America. Both hurricanes were fueled by waters warmer than would have been possible without decades of emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases.

Trump also withdrew the United States from the Paris agreement. This decision would have caused the collapse of international efforts to tackle climate change collectively, were it not that delays in withdrawal meant Biden was able to reverse it almost immediately.

Climate research and education

Some Republican-controlled states have effectively banned the teaching of climate science in state schools. As President, Trump wouldn’t have such powers directly, but he appears inclined to go as far as he can, given his often-stated hostility to the science. For example, Project 2025 lists climate change as one of the things the National Security Council should deprioritize in communications. This means that fears the US could be drawn into conflicts caused or amplified by a hotter world could not be communicated to the troops who might have to do the fighting as a result.

On the other hand, Project 2025 proposes to dissolve the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the arm of the national government responsible for a great deal of climate research. More immediately, the NOAA provides services such as hurricane monitoring. Then again, given Trump’s previously indicated belief he has a better idea where hurricanes will strike than the experts, it’s not surprising he might see it as unnecessary.

Harris has not specifically addressed these questions, but her policy book promises to “develop and secure America’s research base.” There is no reason to think climate research would not be part of this.