The United States stands on the brink of a critical decision in its fight against climate change. The 2024 election marks a pivotal moment in U.S. environmental policy as voters consider two drastically different approaches. While Democratic candidate Kamala Harris champions a future centered on renewable energy, global partnerships, and climate equity, Republican candidate Donald Trump proposes deregulation and increased fossil fuel production to boost energy independence.
The outcome of this election could either accelerate or significantly slow America’s climate progress. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that global temperatures could rise by 1.5 degrees Celsius by the early 2030s without aggressive intervention—a threshold that brings risks of severe droughts, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events. With the U.S. currently the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, its policies will influence the trajectory of global climate action.
Although climate change is a growing concern, it remains secondary to issues like the economy and healthcare. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 57% of Americans rate climate change as a “very important” issue in this election. Still, it trails the economy and healthcare in voter priorities. This emphasis could shape voter turnout and potentially impact how candidates address climate policy in the final days of their campaigns.
Kamala Harris’s climate strategy is grounded in aggressive emission reductions, clean energy investment, and climate justice. Her policies aim to maintain U.S. commitments under the Paris Agreement while positioning the nation as a global leader in climate initiatives.
Harris has pledged to double down on renewable energy investment, with goals to achieve a 100% clean power sector by 2035. Recent U.S. Department of Energy data suggests expanding renewables could generate over 10 million jobs by 2030. Under Harris’s plan, federal support for wind, solar, and geothermal energy would increase significantly, creating both environmental benefits and economic growth within the renewable sector.
If elected, Harris would push for a 50-52% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, consistent with international goals to limit warming. Her focus includes decarbonizing transportation, which is responsible for nearly 29% of the nation’s emissions, and improving energy efficiency in both public and private sectors. The Inflation Reduction Act, which she supports, has already mobilized over $100 billion toward clean energy projects; under Harris, this momentum would continue, potentially helping the U.S. meet its emission targets and inspire similar actions globally.
Harris has prioritized climate equity, underscoring that marginalized communities bear the brunt of pollution and extreme weather. Her administration would likely push for targeted investments in climate resilience for these communities. According to the National Academy of Sciences, low-income and minority communities are at significantly higher risk of climate-induced health issues. By advocating for equitable climate policies, Harris seeks to address these disparities and ensure that green job opportunities extend to all communities.
On the global stage, Harris would seek to restore U.S. leadership in climate diplomacy. Her policies include financial assistance for developing countries to address climate impacts, helping them build resilience and reduce emissions. With a renewed commitment to the Paris Agreement, a Harris administration would work alongside allies to enforce stricter climate goals, reflecting the U.S.’s influence in driving worldwide climate policy.
Vice President Kamala Harris's 2024 presidential campaign has garnered substantial support from climate-focused organizations, companies, and individuals, reflecting her commitment to environmental issues.
Several environmental organizations have launched significant advertising campaigns in support of Harris:
These groups collectively invested $55 million in pro-Harris advertisements, emphasizing her climate policies and contrasting them with those of her opponent.
Leaders in the clean energy industry have actively fundraised for Harris, expressing concerns about potential setbacks under the Trump administration. Executives and investors in renewable energy have organized events to bolster her campaign, highlighting the industry’s stake in the election’s outcome.
Prominent figures have made significant donations to support Harris’s campaign.
Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, privately pledged approximately $50 million to Future Forward, a nonprofit backing Harris. This marks a notable shift in Gates’s political engagement, driven by concerns over the election’s implications for climate policy.
Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, has been a prominent supporter of Harris. He has endorsed her candidacy and contributed substantial funds to her campaign. Hoffman has also mobilized other tech investors to back Harris, reflecting his commitment to her vision for the future.
Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City and founder of Bloomberg L.P., has donated over $42 million to Harris’s campaign. Bloomberg’s support underscores his alignment with Harris’s policies, particularly those related to climate change and public health.
Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook, has also contributed to Harris's campaign. His support reflects a broader trend of tech industry leaders backing candidates with progressive climate agendas.
In contrast, Donald Trump’s climate agenda prioritizes deregulation and fossil fuel expansion, focusing on boosting U.S. energy independence. Trump’s platform includes repealing recent climate policies, aiming to lower energy costs by reducing dependence on imported resources and cutting regulatory restrictions on traditional energy.
Trump’s administration has pledged to dismantle the Inflation Reduction Act, which has been instrumental in promoting renewable energy development. This rollback could reverse recent gains in renewable job creation, as the Act is projected to support over one million clean energy jobs by 2030. By cutting subsidies and incentives, Trump’s platform leans towards traditional energy sources, likely increasing fossil fuel consumption and potentially slowing renewable sector growth.
Trump’s energy plan includes increased oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore areas to bolster U.S. energy security. The American Petroleum Institute reports that fossil fuels currently provide nearly 80% of U.S. energy needs, and Trump’s policies align with this focus. However, increased fossil fuel production would contribute to rising emissions, with scientists warning that sustained reliance on oil, gas, and coal could make it nearly impossible to meet global temperature targets.
Trump’s “America First” approach to climate policy would likely mean reduced engagement in global climate agreements like the Paris Accord. Instead, his administration may favor bilateral agreements centered around trade and economic interests. This retreat from multilateral climate efforts could diminish the U.S.’s role as a global climate leader and reduce international pressure on other nations to prioritize emissions reductions.
As of the 2024 election cycle, Donald Trump has received significant financial backing from the fossil fuel industry. Data from campaign finance records indicate that Trump’s campaign has collected approximately $501,000 in direct contributions from oil and gas companies, industry executives, and lobbyists. This support places him among the top five recipients of oil and gas donations for the 2024 election, alongside other prominent Republican figures.
The oil and gas sector heavily favors Republican candidates, donating more than seven times as much to Republicans and conservative groups than to Democrats. As of April 2024, the industry had contributed over $25 million to Republican-aligned campaigns and causes, compared to just $3.6 million to Democratic campaigns
The 2024 election is a turning point for America’s climate policy and its role on the global stage. With Harris advocating for bold climate action and Trump proposing an energy strategy based on deregulation, voters face a choice that will shape U.S. environmental priorities and international climate relations for years to come. For Americans concerned about the environment’s future, this election offers two clear, divergent paths forward—each with lasting impacts on the nation’s resilience to climate change.
