Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have starkly different track records on climate change.
During his presidency, Trump loosened limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, vehicles and other sources, weakened energy efficiency standards, and left the Paris Agreement, a major 2015 international accord to limit global warming.
Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. rejoined the Paris Agreement and set emissions reduction targets. The Biden-Harris administration made progress on meeting those targets, including through regulatory efforts and passing the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which provide support for clean energy investment and related infrastructure. Harris cast the tie-breaking vote in 2022 to pass the IRA in the Senate.
However, the U.S. is still not on track to meet emissions reduction targets for 2030. To get there, the next presidential administration will need to take further steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. And an administration hostile to climate action could erode progress toward meeting those goals.
To shed light on the two candidates’ climate agendas, we sorted through their campaign materials and recent statements on the campaign trail.
The Urgency of Climate Change
Harris, presidential debate on ABC News, Philadelphia, Sept. 10: Well, the former president had said that climate change is a hoax. And what we know is that it is very real. You ask anyone who lives in a state who has experienced these extreme weather occurrences who now is either being denied home insurance or it’s being jacked up. You ask anybody who has been the victim of what that means in terms of losing their home, having nowhere to go. We know that we can actually deal with this issue.
Trump, interview with Elon Musk, X, Aug. 12: The biggest threat is not global warming, where the ocean’s going to rise one-eighth of an inch over the next 400 years and you’ll have more oceanfront property. The biggest threat is not that. The biggest threat is nuclear warming ...
In her limited direct references to climate change during her presidential campaign, Harris has made clear that she considers it an urgent problem. Trump repeatedly has made false statements about climate science and indicated that he does not consider mitigating global warming to be a priority.
The Harris campaign’s communications and Harris’ own statements on climate change have often used the word “crisis.”
During her Aug. 22 speech at the Democratic National Convention, Harris listed “fundamental freedoms” that are “at stake” in the election, including the “freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.”
As she had done previously on the campaign trail, at the Sept. 10 presidential debate, Harris contrasted her view of climate change — which she correctly called “very real” — with Trump’s past statements that it is a “hoax.”
Trump has not used the word “hoax” to describe climate change during his current presidential campaign, but he has repeatedly spread falsehoods about sea level rise, incorrectly cast doubt on the idea that the earth is getting warmer and indicated that he does not consider climate change to be important.
At the June 27 Trump-Biden debate, Trump at first didn’t answer a question about climate change. When pushed, he still deflected, bringing up clean water and air rather than directly addressing climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
“So, I want absolutely immaculate, clean water and I want absolutely clean air, and we had it. We had H2O — we had the best numbers ever. And we did — we were using all forms of energy, all forms, everything. And yet, during my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever,” Trump said. He has continued to claim that the U.S. had the “cleanest air” and the “cleanest water” during his presidency.
As we wrote at the time of the debate, greenhouse gas emissions temporarily dipped at the end of the Trump presidency, but this was due to reduced activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Trump administration reversed many environmental regulations, including 28 on air pollution and emissions and eight on water pollution.
In his July 18 speech at the Republican National Convention and when he debated Harris in September, Trump did not mention climate change, other than to indirectly refer at the convention to his plans to reverse efforts to mitigate it, which he called the “green new scam,” and state his intention to “drill, baby, drill.”
At rallies and other events, Trump has been more expansive.
He often gives varying and incorrect information about the extent of sea level rise while diminishing its impact. “And nobody knows if that’s true or not, but they’re worried about the ocean rising an eighth of an inch or a quarter of an inch in 300 years,” he said at an Oct. 16 Univision town hall in Miami, as part of a long answer to a question from a Floridian asking if he still considered climate change a hoax. (In fact, the ocean is rising more than an eighth of an inch per year already.) Trump also referred to the “green new hoax” in his answer, referring to efforts to combat climate change.
As he has often done, Trump juxtaposed his statements about sea level rise with concerns about nuclear war — which he sometimes refers to as “nuclear warming” — in an apparent attempt to diminish the importance of global warming in comparison. “What I’m worried about is nuclear weapons tomorrow,” he said at the Univision event.
Trump has also repeatedly used old tropes to try to cast doubt on climate science, including by incorrectly claiming that people have stopped using the term global warming because the earth is getting cooler in some places. He has also recently falsely claimed at multiple events that the earth is cooling.
“Remember when they used to say global warming? They don’t say that anymore. They say climate change because the planet’s actually getting cooler,” Trump said at a Sept. 18 rally in Uniondale, New York.
As many scientists have stated again and again, there is clear evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions have led to a rise in global average temperature since the pre-industrial period.
The Paris Agreement and International Cooperation
Trump, WPXI interview, Oct. 20: We’re going to [exit the Paris Agreement] again because it’s a rip-off. We pay $1 trillion. Other countries pay nothing. China pays nothing … It’s a ridiculous, one-sided deal.
Harris, CNN interview, Aug. 29: We have set goals for the United States of America and by extension, the globe, around when we should meet certain standards for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
As promised during the 2016 campaign, the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Agreement as soon as it could, in November 2020. In February 2021, the U.S. rejoined the accord under Biden.
As part of rejoining the agreement, the Biden-Harris administration committed to a 50% to 52% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Participating nations must set an emissions reduction pledge every five years; the next set of pledges are scheduled for 2025.
If elected, Trump has vowed in his Agenda 47 to leave the “horrendously unfair” Paris Agreement once again, and he has continued to refer to it as “horribly unfair,” “ridiculous,” “disastrous” or “the most unfair document you’ve ever seen.”
We could not find comments from Harris on the Paris Agreement since her presidential campaign began, but she has expressed support for international cooperation and the setting of climate goals.
“As the Vice President said at the international climate conference, COP28, she knows that meeting this global challenge will require global cooperation and she is committed to continuing and building upon the United States’ international climate leadership,” the issues section of Harris’ website says, referring to the conference held at the end of last year, which focused on implementing the Paris Agreement.
The Paris Agreement, negotiated via the United Nations, includes commitments from wealthier countries with greater historic contributions to climate change, such as the U.S., to provide financing to developing countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The agreement also encourages developing countries to contribute.
Trump repeatedly has claimed that the Paris Agreement would cost the U.S. billions — or sometimes $1 trillion — while costing other countries nothing. In fact, in 2022 alone, wealthier nations contributed nearly $116 billion in climate finance to developing countries. The U.S. gave $5.8 billion that year, according to the Biden-Harris administration, in addition to contributing to banks that provide grants and loans for climate-related projects in developing countries. The Biden-Harris administration pledged to reach more than $11 billion in annual climate finance in 2024, although it is unclear whether it will meet this goal.
Trump often complains that China has contributed nothing under the Paris Agreement. China is sometimes classified as developing and has not contributed to climate finance via the U.N. But China has separately provided some climate funding to other nations.
A second Trump withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would have “significant implications for climate finance,” Gautam Jain, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, wrote in an Oct. 15 blog post. It might not only affect U.S. contributions but could also affect contributions from other countries.
“Since the [Paris] agreement is not legally binding and is based on trust and leadership, the stance taken by the largest economy sets the tone for the rest of the world,” he wrote.
Renewable Energy Investment and the Inflation Reduction Act
Harris, CNN interview, Aug. 29: I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far: The Inflation Reduction Act. What we have done to invest — by my calculation … probably a trillion dollars over the next ten years — investing in a clean energy economy.
Trump, speech at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 5: To further defeat inflation, my plan will terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the green new scam. Greatest scam in history, probably. A $10 trillion scam that we waste. We throw it, like throwing money right out the window. It actually sets us back as opposed to moves us forward. And rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.
Key to making progress toward emissions reduction goals is continuing to implement the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides significant support for renewable energy projects. An analysis of nine separate models published in Science in 2023 found that on average, with the IRA in place, U.S. emissions would reach 37% below 2005 levels by 2030, compared with just a 28% reduction without it.
A March 2024 Carbon Brief analysis similarly estimated that if the IRA and other Biden-Harris policies were fully implemented, the U.S. would hit a 43% drop in emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, whereas a rollback of those policies would result in a 28% decline — a difference of some 4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. The estimate does not factor in additional policies either administration might enact.
Harris has indicated continued support for implementing and expanding climate provisions of the IRA.
The short climate section on the Harris campaign website highlights her role in casting the tie-breaking vote for the Inflation Reduction Act and its role in “building a thriving clean energy economy, all while ensuring America’s energy security and independence with record energy production.” The text continues, “As President, she will unite Americans to tackle the climate crisis as she builds on this historic work.”
In contrast, Trump has expressed hostility toward renewable energy projects — particularly those involving wind energy — and indicated he would stall further implementation of the IRA.
Trump has rebranded the IRA and other climate change-related efforts as the “green new scam” — a play on the Green New Deal, a nonbinding resolution Democrats put forward in 2019 on how to fight climate change. As a senator, Harris cosponsored the resolution, but it never came up for a vote in the Senate.
At the Republican National Convention, Trump appeared to pledge to redirect money intended for climate efforts. “And all of the trillions of dollars that are sitting there not yet spent, we will redirect that money for important projects like roads, bridges, dams and we will not allow it to be spent on the meaningless green new scam ideas,” he said. (The IRA does provide funding for hydroelectric projects and certain transportation infrastructure projects.) Trump has continued to often mention the “green new scam,” promising to “terminate” it.
In a Sept. 5 speech at the Economic Club of New York, Trump was more specific, vowing to “rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.”
Neither Harris nor Trump have fully spelled out what they would do to build on or undermine the clean energy related portions of the IRA, respectively.
The IRA includes more than $142 billion in funding for various loans, grants and other direct spending related to combating climate change, such as for building or repurposing factories to make cleaner vehicles or providing individuals with home energy rebates.
It also will include tax credits for renewable energy projects, electric vehicles and energy efficiency-related efforts, possibly totaling more than $1 trillion over 10 years, depending on how many tax credits are claimed. Tax credits for wind, solar and battery storage projects will make the most significant difference in lowering emissions, analysts say.
Trump could blunt the impact of the IRA, but there would be limits in his ability to halt spending.
Of $105 billion allocated for grants, nearly half had already been spent or committed as of July, according to a report from the Sabin Institute, with more spending or commitments expected before the end of the Biden-Harris administration. There are also limits on how much of the remaining funds could be redirected, the report said. The next administration would be able to reallocate at most 10% of funds for any given program.
Tax credits under the IRA “are generally less vulnerable to direct executive interference than its spending provisions,” according to the Sabin report. Trump would need cooperation from Congress to do away with IRA-related tax credits, explained Jason Bordoff, founding director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy in a blog post, but he could potentially make them harder to take advantage of.
Trump has repeatedly railed against wind energy, claiming that it is too expensive and that it is harmful to the environment. (In fact, onshore wind has a similar or smaller cost than natural gas. Also, Trump’s claims about the environmental harms of wind farms, which often focus on threats to birds, don’t put them in the context of other environmental threats, such as birds colliding with buildings and climate change itself.)
Agenda 47 states that Trump “will immediately stop all Joe Biden policies that distort energy markets, limit consumer choice, and drive-up costs on consumers, including insane wind subsidies.” Wind energy in 2023 accounted for around 10% of all utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S.
Agenda 47 expresses support for nuclear power, hydropower and “clean coal.” During his presidency, Trump advanced tax credits for carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy when he signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
As we’ve said, the IRA provides funding for hydroelectric power projects, as well as tax credits to preserve existing nuclear power plants and encourage the development of advanced nuclear reactors. It is unclear what Trump means by “clean coal,” but the IRA also includes incentives for carbon capture and storage, which can be used to reduce emissions from coal power plants.
Separate from the IRA, Trump said he would end offshore wind projects, while the Biden-Harris administration has approved 10 such projects in federal waters.
When Trump talks about solar projects, his comments are more mixed. At an Oct. 22 campaign event at his golf club in Miami, for instance, Trump said he was “in favor of solar” before continuing, “I saw a solar field the other day that looked like it took up half the desert. I’d never saw anything like it. It’s all steel and glass and wires and looks like hell. And you see rabbits, they get caught in it.”
While utility-scale solar farms can take up hundreds to thousands of acres, their footprint needs to be put in the context of other development, such as golf courses, and the environmental benefits of their low carbon emissions. Solar farm developers are also attempting to make plans that mitigate effects on animals.
Trump has also said he may do away with the IRA’s $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles. (For more on electric vehicles, read the next section below.)
In contrast, Harris has highlighted the achievements of the IRA, including increasing the nation’s battery storage capacity, along with solar manufacturing and wind energy production. In the document A New Way Forward for the Middle Class, Harris says her administration would continue to “invest in a thriving clean energy economy.” She also promises to “build on efforts to directly lower home energy costs for working families,” mentioning tax credits for home energy technologies under the IRA.
In the document, the Harris campaign also appears to allude to the need to reform renewable energy project permitting, referencing plans for “cutting red tape so that clean energy projects are completed quickly and efficiently.” She also proposes support for the cement and steel industries to reduce emissions.
And the campaign promises to “unlock upgrades, efficiencies, and faster construction of a lower-cost and more resilient electrical grid to speed up deployment of cutting-edge technologies that are critical to producing and distributing more energy, providing resilience to climate disasters, and bringing down costs.”
As of 2023, more than one-fifth of U.S. electricity generation came from renewable sources. New renewable energy projects will need to be integrated into the electrical grid, and the next president will have influence over grid-related policies.
Electric Vehicles and Emissions Standards
Trump, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Aug. 30: Kamala Harris wants to outlaw your car and truck and force you to buy electric vehicles whether you like them or not, whether you can afford it or not, and they don’t go far.
Harris, Flint, Michigan, Oct. 4: We will ensure that the next generation of breakthroughs, from advanced batteries to electric vehicles, are not only invented but built right here in America by American union workers. And Michigan, let us be clear. Contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive.
Even while claiming to “love” electric vehicles, Trump has disparaged and spread misinformation about them throughout his campaign, including after an endorsement from Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk. Harris, meanwhile, has not said much about EVs, but has previously spoken positively of them and supported them in various policies.
Trump has said EVs “don’t go far,” “cost too much” and are “all made in China.” He has continued to claim that the Biden-Harris administration spent some $9 billion to build eight EV charging stations — a wild exaggeration, as we’ve written.
The former president has falsely claimed that batteries make electric trucks so heavy that “every bridge has to be rebuilt because the weight is double and triple that of a gasoline or diesel tank truck.” That’s bogus. All semi-trucks have a weight limit of 80,000 pounds and bridges are built to accommodate that weight, as our colleagues at the Washington Post have explained. The extra weight of an electric truck — which is not double conventional trucks — means the vehicles can’t carry as much cargo.
Trump has also incorrectly alleged that giant Chinese auto plants being built in Mexico — many of them for electric vehicles — will eliminate “every single job” in the auto industry in the U.S. As we wrote, there’s only one, small Chinese auto plant in Mexico, announced during Trump’s term. No others are under construction.
On the campaign trail and in his Agenda 47, Trump has frequently said he will end an electric vehicle “mandate.” But as we’ve written before, there isn’t a mandate for electric vehicles. In March, the Biden-Harris administration finalized environmental regulations that reduce carbon emissions and other pollutants from cars and trucks, starting with model year 2027 vehicles. The emissions standards are stringent enough that they are expected to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road. But carmakers ultimately determine how to comply and there is no requirement that they only make EVs.
Indeed, while the Biden-Harris administration’s goal is to have zero-emissions vehicles make up 50% of new car sales by 2030, the regulations are technology-neutral. Environmental Protection Agency projections indicate new EV sales could be as low as 30% or as high as 56% in 2032 under the new regulations. After a change to the proposed standards, which called for faster pollution reductions, the car industry as a whole has not opposed the new standards.
Harris’ campaign has said she “does not support an electric vehicle mandate” and Harris has told voters that she will “never tell you what kind of car you have to drive.” In her last presidential campaign in 2019, though, she supported phasing out sales of internal combustion cars by 2035.
By 2032, the Biden-Harris emissions standards are projected to cut greenhouse emissions nearly in half for cars, pickup trucks, SUVs and minivans, relative to the previous standards.
Trump plans to reverse the Biden-Harris administration’s emissions regulations and accompanying fuel economy standards. He has also told Reuters he would consider ending a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles included in the IRA.
The credit, which is intended to boost the domestic EV industry and decrease reliance on China, has multiple requirements. There is an income limit for buyers and a price cap on vehicles. Vehicles are not eligible unless they are assembled in North America. The credit amount is also tied to where battery components were manufactured and where battery raw materials, such as lithium and graphite, were mined or processed. To qualify, a percentage of each need to have occurred in the U.S. or elsewhere in North America. (In May, the U.S. Treasury Department relaxed some of the mineral requirements until 2027 in recognition that virtually all graphite is currently sourced from China.)
Trump has said he will instead invite Chinese automakers to build cars in the U.S. “We’re going to give incentives, and if China and other countries want to come here and sell the cars, they’re going to build plants here, and they’re going to hire our workers,” he told Reuters in August.
He has also said he will put tariffs of “200, 250%” on Chinese cars built in Mexico (and called for a 60% tariff on all Chinese goods). “If you put tariffs on those cars, they’re going to make it here,” Trump also told Reuters. “It’s very simple. It’s not complicated.” But as we’ve written, the current trade agreement with Mexico, which Trump negotiated, doesn’t permit tariffs just on Chinese cars.
Taxing EV-related imports from China is not just a Republican idea. Although very few Americans are purchasing Chinese EVs, the Biden-Harris administration finalized a 100% tariff on EVs and a 25% tariff on EV batteries, parts and minerals imported from China in September. Most of these were increases from the Trump-era, when duties had been set at 25% for EVs and 7.5% for batteries and their components. (Also in September, the Biden-Harris administration proposed a ban on Chinese-developed software in cars. If finalized, this would effectively prohibit all Chinese cars regardless of production location.)
Although Harris’ agenda only mentions EVs once — when establishing that Harris will take action when U.S. workers and businesses are threatened by China — it is expected that her administration will continue to support the EV-friendly policies put in place during the Biden-Harris administration.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, for example, which was enacted in 2021, included $7.5 billion for EV charging infrastructure and funding for research and development of EV batteries. In late 2021, when announcing these investments as vice president, Harris called EVs a “solution” to the “pollution from vehicles powered by fossil fuels.”
The IRA, which Harris’ website says she will “build on,” included significant investments in charging infrastructure, domestic manufacturing and, as we mentioned, tax credits for people to purchase new and used EVs.
“I will make sure that America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century, which is why, under my plan, we will invest in the industries that built America like steel, iron, and the great American auto industry,” she said at an Oct. 18 event in Michigan with the local autoworker union. “And we will ensure that the next generation of breakthroughs, from advanced batteries to electric vehicles, are not just invented but built right here in America by American union workers.”
Fossil Fuel Projects
Trump, Atlanta, Oct. 15: To crush inflation we will quickly become energy independent and we will frack, frack, frack and drill, baby, drill.
Harris, presidential debate on ABC, Sept. 10: I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking. My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over-rely on foreign oil.
Trump has made his stance on the extraction of fossil fuels clear by using a Republican slogan first used in 2008: “Drill, baby, drill!” One of his key proposals is to lower energy prices by increasing production of oil and natural gas, or what he calls “liquid gold.”
But as experts have told us, while increasing the supply could put downward pressure on prices in the short term, if demand remains constant, prices are set on a global market, subject to world events. Producers worldwide won’t want to drill more if prices are too low. Also, new oil or gas wells take time to become operational. (For more, see “The Issues: Trump’s Proposal to Lower Prices by Increasing Energy Production.”)
Trump’s plan to increase oil and natural gas production, which is at record levels, includes expediting the approval of federal permits and leases, increasing the amount of public land available for drilling, and accelerating the approval of natural gas pipelines in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. He has also mentioned reviving the Keystone XL oil pipeline project that was canceled in 2021.
Based on anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that Trump played up his plans to help the industry, including reversing drilling restrictions in Alaska and offering more oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico, while speaking to a room of oil executives in April. He suggested the group should raise $1 billion for his campaign, calling it a “deal,” according to the Post’s account.
“Starting on Day 1, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refiners, new power plants, new reactors, and we will slash the red tape,” he said at a campaign event in Michigan in August.
Trump has also promised to immediately undo a temporary pause on approvals for new liquefied natural gas, or LNG, projects that export to countries that do not have free trade agreements with the U.S. Citing the “climate crisis,” the Biden-Harris administration announced the pause in January. The Department of Energy said the pause was necessary to update economic and environmental impact analyses that help the agency determine if projects are in the public interest. It also noted that the U.S. had recently become the top LNG exporter in the world.
The temporary freeze impacted a dozen LNG projects with pending applications, including a large facility in Louisiana, according to a list compiled by the Center for LNG. The pause was contested by 16 Republican-led states in March and blocked by a federal judge in Louisiana, who determined the DOE’s review had to be “expeditious.” As Politico reported, the ruling did not require DOE to issue any permits, but the agency did authorize one facility in late summer. Experts told Politico in September that they didn’t expect any more authorizations while Biden is in office.
With respect to Trump’s claims during the campaign and in his agenda of “making America energy independent again,” as we’ve written, the U.S. was never 100% energy self-sufficient during his presidency — and isn’t likely to be in the future, according to experts. During Trump’s administration, the country did produce more energy than it consumed and exported more energy than it imported. That’s likely what Trump means by “energy independent.” By that definition, the U.S. has continued to be “energy independent” under Biden. But under both administrations, the U.S. has imported oil and other forms of energy to meet domestic demand.
Although Harris’ agenda clearly differs from Trump’s in that it prioritizes the growth of a clean energy economy, she has at times touted increases in fossil fuel production, even as she has highlighted her role defending “communities that were being poisoned by polluters and Big Oil.”
As California’s attorney general, Harris began an investigation into whether Exxon Mobil lied about the risks of climate change and she helped bring charges against a pipeline company after a 2015 oil spill near Santa Barbara.
Harris has stressed the need for diverse sources of energy and has said she doesn’t support a ban on fracking — a reversal from her position when she was running to be the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee.
“We can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking,” she said in a CNN interview in August.
It’s worth noting that presidents only have authority to restrict drilling on federal land, where a small percentage of oil and natural gas production takes place in the U.S.
During her debate with Trump, Harris highlighted that the IRA “opened new leases for fracking.”
As a condition for auctioning leases for offshore wind development, the IRA requires that the government auction leases for at least 60 million acres for oil and gas. The law also required the government to move forward with certain lease sales Trump had begun but Biden had paused. These provisions were the result of negotiations with Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who was a Democrat but is now an independent.
In late 2023, the Department of the Interior announced its final 2024-2029 plan, saying it had met the 60 million acre minimum to allow wind leases to proceed with a total of three oil and gas sales — all in the Gulf of Mexico. The department’s release noted that this was the fewest leases in history, and that both the areas considered and the number of leases were “significantly narrowed” from the original proposal from the Trump administration, which included “47 lease sales off all coastal areas,” including Alaska.
On LNG exports to non-free trade agreement countries, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign suggested the vice president will be guided by the outcome of the DOE’s review, Reuters reported. “The Vice President believes that we need to make decisions informed by the best economic and scientific information -including projected impacts on energy costs, energy security, the environment, and public health,” the spokesperson told the news outlet.
The Harris campaign did not respond to our specific questions about her stance on fossil fuel production.
Power Plant and Energy Efficiency Regulations
Trump, rally in York, Pennsylvania, Aug. 19: I’m announcing today that when I return to the White House, I will end the anti-American energy crusade and terminate Kamala’s so-called power plant rule. It’s a disaster for our country.
As we’ve said, a major difference between the past two presidential administrations has been in the approach to climate-related regulations — with the Trump administration generally rolling back regulations and the Biden-Harris administration reinstating regulations and making new ones.
Trump often discusses his record of cutting regulations and promises further cuts in his speeches. Beyond his promises to cut vehicle emissions regulations, he has said in his Agenda 47 and more recently at a rally in York, Pennsylvania, that he will rescind the Biden-Harris administration’s “power plant rule.” Trump has also repeatedly said on the campaign trail that Harris is “shutting down” power plants, sometimes citing regulations as the cause.
The Biden-Harris administration has made a rule limiting carbon emissions from power plants that has been challenged in court. The Supreme Court on Oct. 16 decided that the rule could go into effect while legal cases work their way through the courts. If fully implemented, the rule will require certain new natural gas power plants, as well as coal power plants intending to operate long-term, to use technology such as carbon capture and sequestration/storage to prevent 90% of their carbon emissions by 2032.
Trump also vowed in Agenda 47 to stop regulations “that prevent Americans from buying” gas stoves, incandescent light bulbs, “quality” dishwashers, “and much more.”
Under Biden-Harris, the Department of Energy released rules encouraging greater gas stove energy efficiency, but these rules would not ban gas stoves. The IRA also provides rebates for electric stove purchases. Another DOE rule phased out incandescent light bulbs, and the agency has also set new energy efficiency rules for dishwashers.
We have not found comments from Harris since the beginning of her campaign on power plant regulations or those for gas stoves, light bulbs or dishwashers.
Most recently on the topic of energy efficiency, Trump has claimed that “they want every building in Manhattan to not have windows anymore because they think it’s environmentally friendly” or that “they want buildings in New York taken down and rebuilt without windows.”
However, energy-efficient homes — which Harris’ plans promote — can and do have windows. Harris’ economic plan notes that the IRA provides homeowners a tax credit of up to $600 each year to install energy-efficient windows.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.