As the country grapples with the aftermath of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, the devastating impact of these natural disasters has brought climate change to the forefront of the presidential campaign. Despite the destruction and loss of life caused by these storms, the issue of climate change has not received as much attention as one might expect in the lead-up to the election.
With early voting already underway and Election Day fast approaching, voters will soon decide between Vice President Kamala Harris, who has labeled climate change as an “existential threat,” and former President Donald Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a “hoax.” The outcome of the election will have a significant impact on the country’s progress towards crucial climate goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.
The next administration will play a pivotal role in shaping the country’s energy future and environmental policies. This includes decisions about how electricity is generated and supplied, as well as investments in renewable energy sources and infrastructure. The contrast between the two candidates is stark: Trump has championed the fossil fuel industry and advocated for increased drilling, while Harris has promised a more nuanced approach that includes support for nuclear power and incentives for low-emissions energy.
The impact of these policies on individual households is also significant. The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act has provided incentives for Americans to decarbonize their homes through rebates and tax credits for energy-efficient upgrades and renewable energy installations. If elected, Trump has pledged to rescind this funding, potentially slowing down the transition to cleaner energy sources. In contrast, Harris has expressed support for the law and is likely to continue its implementation, with a focus on more efficient utilization.
As voters prepare to cast their ballots, it is important to consider how the climate and environment-related policies of the two candidates could affect their lives. The next four years will be crucial in determining the country’s trajectory towards a more sustainable and resilient future, and the choice of leadership will have far-reaching consequences for generations to come.
On the other hand, Trump has made his stance clear on transportation: he wants to invest in fossil fuels. During his campaign, he promised to roll back fuel efficiency standards and to promote the extraction of coal, oil, and gas. His administration has also dismantled key environmental regulations and has focused on expanding highways and oil pipelines. While this approach may boost short-term economic growth, it comes at a cost to the environment and public health.
One of the key battlegrounds in the transportation sector is the transition to electric vehicles (EVs). Harris has pledged to accelerate the adoption of EVs, which are crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. The bipartisan infrastructure law includes incentives for consumers to purchase EVs, as well as funding for the development of EV charging infrastructure. These investments will not only reduce emissions but also create jobs in the clean energy sector.
Conversely, Trump’s focus on fossil fuels could hinder the growth of the EV market. By promoting oil and gas extraction and rolling back fuel efficiency standards, his administration could slow down the transition to cleaner transportation options. This would not only stall progress in reducing emissions but also limit the economic opportunities in the rapidly growing clean energy industry.
Ultimately, the choice between Harris and Trump on transportation policy comes down to a decision between investing in a sustainable, clean energy future or doubling down on the fossil fuel industry. The consequences of this decision will have far-reaching impacts on the environment, public health, and the economy.
As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the transportation policies of the candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, are coming under scrutiny. Harris has not called for the eventual elimination of internal combustion vehicles, despite plans in 12 states to ban new gas-powered cars. On the other hand, Trump has been sparse on details about transportation on his website, focusing more on decrying Chinese ownership and proposing a $1 trillion infrastructure plan during his first term and 2020 campaign, which never materialized.
Trump’s infrastructure plan centered around building roads, highways, and bridges, while reducing environmental review and government oversight. He also favored shifting the funding model onto states, municipalities, and the private sector. In contrast, Harris has not provided many signals on how she would approach transportation policy, but she is expected to prioritize a transition to low-carbon transportation.
The 2024 official Republican platform, supported by Trump, calls for rolling back EV mandates and remains a vocal supporter of fossil fuel production. It is clear that Trump has little interest in transitioning to low-carbon transportation. In contrast, Harris is expected to continue Biden’s work in this area, focusing on emissions-cutting policies that will lead to less global warming in the long term.
In terms of public health, rising global temperatures and worsening extreme weather are changing the distribution and prevalence of diseases across the U.S. There are concerns that a second Trump term would further separate federal agencies’ research functions from their rulemaking capacities, affecting the CDC’s ability to track the effects of climate change on human health. On the other hand, Harris is expected to leave the CDC intact and continue Biden’s work in protecting Americans from extreme heat.
When it comes to food prices, both candidates have promised to tackle the issue of high prices, especially high food prices. Harris has proposed a federal price-gouging ban to lower the cost of groceries, while Trump has suggested taxing imported goods to lower food prices. However, economists fear that these measures could lead to further supply shortages and reduced product quality. Trump’s immigration agenda could also affect food prices, with tariff fights during the U.S.-China trade war causing farmers to lose billions of dollars in exports.
As the election draws near, voters will have to consider the candidates’ transportation, public health, and food price policies when making their decision at the polls. The outcome of the election will have a significant impact on these crucial issues in the years to come. The upcoming 2024 presidential election will have significant implications for the food and agriculture sector, as well as the safety of public drinking water. The two candidates, former President Trump and Vice President Harris, have contrasting approaches to these critical issues.
Former President Trump has vowed to expel millions of undocumented immigrants if reelected, many of whom play vital roles in food harvesting and processing. This mass deportation could lead to labor shortages in the industry, potentially driving up prices at the grocery store. On the other hand, Vice President Harris has promised to uphold and strengthen the H-2A visa system, which allows agricultural producers to hire foreign-born workers for seasonal work.
While both candidates have economic plans that may not immediately address the impact of extreme weather and climate disasters on food prices, it is essential to consider how these events are already affecting the cost of groceries. Severe droughts, reduced agricultural productivity, and major climate disasters have destabilized the global crop market, leading to higher prices for consumers. These trends are likely to continue over the next four years, regardless of who wins the election.
In the long run, the winner of the 2024 election will have the power to influence how climate change affects the food supply by controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Both candidates have the opportunity to prioritize sustainability and resilience in the agriculture sector to mitigate the impact of climate change on food production.
When it comes to the protection of public drinking water, the policies of the two candidates also differ significantly. During his first term, President Trump rolled back critical environmental regulations, such as the Clean Water Rule, which protected the drinking water of millions of Americans. Additionally, his administration weakened the EPA’s ability to regulate pollution in wetlands, further endangering water quality.
In contrast, a Harris administration would likely continue the work of the Biden EPA to safeguard public drinking water from toxic contaminants. Measures such as the nation’s first-ever national drinking water standard for PFAS chemicals demonstrate a commitment to protecting the health and safety of Americans through strong environmental regulations.
As voters consider the candidates’ positions on food and agriculture, as well as public drinking water, it is crucial to prioritize policies that promote sustainability, resilience, and environmental protection. The outcome of the 2024 election will have a lasting impact on these critical issues and the future of our food supply and water quality.
President Biden has promised to restore the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments to their original sizes, and to work with tribal nations to co-manage these lands. He has also said that he will work to conserve 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, a target set by the United Nations. A second Trump administration, on the other hand, would likely continue to prioritize industry interests over conservation, potentially opening up more federal land for mining, drilling, and logging.
The fate of public lands under the next administration will also be influenced by the staffing and priorities of the Department of the Interior, which oversees the management of federal lands. The Interior Department has faced criticism in recent years for its handling of public lands, including allegations of political interference in scientific research and the controversial relocation of the Bureau of Land Management headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Colorado.
As voters head to the polls in November, they will be deciding not just on the future of the country’s leadership, but also on the future of its environment. The policies and priorities of the next administration will have far-reaching implications for clean air, clean water, and public lands — and for the health and well-being of all Americans. It is crucial for voters to consider these issues when casting their ballots, and to hold elected officials accountable for their promises once they are in office.
As the 2024 election approaches, the stakes for climate change and environmental justice are higher than ever. The decisions made by the next administration will have a significant impact on tribal lands, disaster response, and climate science.
One of the key issues at hand is the protection of tribal lands and the fight against oil and gas development. While the Biden administration has made strides in conservation efforts, there are concerns that a potential second term for Trump could erode federal environmental regulations and commitments to combat climate change. Tribal environmental advocates are worried about the potential consequences of allowing oil and gas production to continue unchecked on their lands.
Vice President Kamala Harris, who may potentially take over as president, has been vocal about supporting oil and gas production and mining for resources like copper and lithium. This stance has raised concerns among tribal communities who have historically been disproportionately affected by energy projects, such as dams and nuclear energy, which have harmed their homelands and health. Without specific protections in place, the transition to green energy could be seen as merely a changing of the guard rather than a true game changer for tribal communities.
In terms of disaster response, the president holds significant power in allocating relief funds after catastrophic events like hurricanes and wildfires. A second Trump administration could potentially curtail climate-focused resiliency projects and infrastructure improvements aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change. There are concerns that disaster aid could be used as leverage for political gain, as seen in Trump’s suggestion to withhold wildfire support from California unless certain demands were met. Harris has not outlined specific plans for funding climate-resiliency or disaster-response programs, but she has shown support for FEMA’s recovery efforts in the past.
Lastly, the United States plays a crucial role in advancing climate science and providing essential data to the public. Trump’s administration was marked by dismissals of climate change as a hoax, cuts to funding for research, and appointments of climate skeptics to key positions. This hindered the government’s ability to respond effectively to the climate crisis and undermined scientific integrity. It remains to be seen how Harris would approach climate science and research if she were to become president.
As voters consider the candidates in the upcoming election, it is important to weigh the potential implications for tribal lands, disaster response, and climate science. The decisions made by the next administration will shape the future of environmental justice and climate action in the United States. If reelected, Trump would almost certainly adopt a similar strategy, deprioritizing climate science and potentially even restructuring or eliminating federal agencies that advance it. This would pose a significant challenge to progress on climate change and hinder efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources.
On the other hand, Harris has a long history of supporting climate action. She co-sponsored the Green New Deal as a senator and played a crucial role in passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which increased funding for agencies overseeing climate research. As vice president, Harris has continued to prioritize climate issues and collaborate with various agencies to ensure that science informs policy decisions.
One key area where the president can influence climate action is through appointments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This commission plays a crucial role in regulating the transmission of utilities across the country, and its decisions can have a significant impact on the transition to clean energy sources. Under the Biden-Harris administration, FERC has taken steps to upgrade the grid infrastructure to support renewable energy adoption. However, these efforts face legal challenges and opposition from the fossil fuel industry.
If Trump were to win the election, he would have the opportunity to appoint new commissioners to FERC who may prioritize fossil fuel interests over clean energy initiatives. This could slow down progress on transitioning to renewable energy sources and hinder efforts to combat climate change. It is essential for voters to consider these implications when casting their ballots in the upcoming election.
Overall, the choice between Trump and Harris in the upcoming election will have significant implications for climate action and the transition to cleaner energy sources. Harris has a track record of supporting climate initiatives and is likely to continue building on the progress made under the Biden administration. On the other hand, Trump’s re-election would likely result in a deprioritization of climate science and a setback in efforts to combat climate change. Voters must consider these differences and the potential impacts on the environment when making their decision at the polls.
In contrast, Biden has rejoined the Paris Agreement on his first day in office, signaling a renewed commitment to global climate action. Harris, who has expressed strong support for climate action on the campaign trail, is expected to continue this international cooperation. The Biden administration has also pledged to double U.S. climate finance to help developing countries adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
At the upcoming United Nations climate negotiations in Egypt, the U.S. will have the opportunity to reestablish itself as a leader in the fight against climate change. However, the outcome of the upcoming presidential election could have significant implications for the U.S.’s role on the global stage. A Trump victory could see the country continue to prioritize fossil fuel interests over climate action, potentially isolating the U.S. from the international community.
Ultimately, the choices made by voters in the upcoming election will have far-reaching consequences for the environment, both domestically and globally. The next president and their administration will play a crucial role in shaping the future of climate policy and environmental protection in the U.S. and beyond.
The Trump administration, despite its controversial stance on climate change, did not entirely abandon global climate discussions. In fact, the administration continued to attend global climate conferences, where it notably endorsed events on fossil fuels. This approach raised concerns among environmentalists and climate activists who were advocating for a shift towards renewable energy sources.
On the other hand, the Biden administration took a different approach by rejoining the Paris Agreement and committing billions of dollars to combat climate change both domestically and abroad. This was seen as a positive step towards addressing the pressing issue of climate change on a global scale. However, a potential second term for Trump could potentially undo this progress, as he has expressed intentions to pull out of the Paris Agreement once again.
Vice President Kamala Harris, who is expected to continue Biden’s climate policies, has been vocal about the urgent need to tackle the climate crisis. At COP28 in Dubai, she emphasized the importance of accelerating efforts to meet the 1.5 degree-Celsius goal and called for increased investments and bold leadership to address the climate emergency.
Despite the differences in approach between the Trump and Biden administrations, both administrations saw record oil and gas production during their time in office. Additionally, Harris has opposed a ban on fracking, indicating a reluctance to disrupt the status quo in the energy sector. However, in order to make meaningful progress in mitigating climate change, substantial investments and a departure from fossil fuel reliance will be necessary.
It is crucial for the incoming administration, whether it be a second Trump term or a continuation of Biden-Harris policies, to prioritize climate action and uphold global commitments to combat climate change. Failure to do so could result in escalating climate-related losses, which are projected to cost $580 billion globally by 2030. The stakes are high, and bold action is needed to address the climate crisis effectively.
