How will the upcoming US Presidential election impact climate change?

The prospect of Trump winning a second term is seen as a threat to the minor gains made by the US on the climate front during Joe Biden’s presidency. Trump’s recent remarks on climate change during a conversation with billionaire Elon Musk on social media were a further reminder that his views have not undergone any change.

But while Trump gets most of the blame for the lack of adequate climate action on the part of the US, the fact is that previous administrations haven’t been very impressive either. The lacklustre performance of the US on climate action over the last three decades is not because of any lack of ability or resources but a result of a calculated strategy.

Tim Walz’s record on climate change 

As a two-time Governor of Minnesota, Walz’s biggest claim to fame is a legislation that he signed on last year requiring Minnesota to generate all its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2040, according to reports in the American news media. This law was enacted during a legislative session in which nearly 40 other climate initiatives were pushed through. These included tax rebates on electric vehicles and plans to expand the network of charging stations, The New York Times reported.

If the Democratic Party wins the presidential election, Governor Walz will bring to Washington DC the most substantive climate record of any incoming President or Vice President since Vice President Al Gore, who served two terms with President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001, The NYT report said.

Annual CO2 emissions by the US.

Walz probably has even better credentials than Gore since he has already been successful in making policy changes, according to the report. Gore incidentally won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his climate activism — and shared that prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body that advances scientific knowledge about climate change.

The laws and policies introduced by Walz in Minnesota were those that the Democrats would like to replicate nationally, according to a report by The Scientific American.

However, Walz is not unique in having pushed some climate-friendly legislation at the state level. Several other states in the US, most of them with Democratic Governors, have introduced similar policies. For example, New York has committed itself to 100 per cent clean energy by 2040, just like Minnesota, and so has Oregon. Several states have incentivised renewable energy and electric vehicles, and set targets for emission reductions.

But the focus on Walz’s climate record is a good political strategy to score a point over Trump who has remained unapologetic in trivialising the climate crisis.

Major changes unlikely

It is extremely unlikely, however, that the Harris-Walz team, if it comes to power, would bring any drastic change in US climate policy, and go beyond the roadmap finalised by the Biden administration through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The trajectory that the US has taken on climate change in the last three decades has largely been a result of bipartisan agreement, with the exception of Trump. And even Trump is unlikely to be as disruptive this time. He has never spoken about withdrawing from the Paris Agreement once again after his previous act of 2016 was undone by Biden.

However, it is quite possible that climate action would not figure on Trump’s list of priorities. An analysis by Carbon Brief, a UK-based climate-focused publication, earlier this year said Trump’s presidency could result in an additional 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent being emitted into the atmosphere by 2030.
But to expect that the choice of Walz by the Harris team would energise global climate action would be unrealistic. The US has never been ambitious on climate action, and there is no reason why this would change if Walz becomes Vice President next year.

In fact, the failure of the US to act responsibly on climate change has been the major reason why it has become all but impossible to achieve the 1.5 degree Celsius temperature target. The US did not just walk out of the Paris Agreement, it had not joined the previous Kyoto Protocol either.

Its emissions are almost the same level as that in 1990, the benchmark year to measure emissions reductions for developed countries. The US has instead chosen 2005 as the baseline year to show progress. Its current emissions are about 17% less than the 2005 levels, but between 1990 and 2005, its emissions had increased by about 15%.

The IRA is considered a major breakthrough, but it still commits the US to only a 50-52% reduction in emissions by 2030 on the 2005 baseline. This translates to a 46% reduction on 2019 levels.

The most recent IPCC assessments show that the world as a whole needs to cut at least 43% of global emissions by 2030 if hopes of meeting the 1.5 degree Celsius target are to be kept alive. That means the US, if it meets its own emissions reduction target for 2030, would be doing only what is expected of the world as a whole, and not more as is required of the country that has the largest historical responsibility.

And even this might not be achieved. An analysis by Rhodium Group, a research firm based in the US, last month showed that the US was not on track to achieve its 2030 targets. It said at the current rate, the US would be able to manage only about 32% to 43% reductions in its emissions by 2030. The 52% target could be achieved only by 2035.