In this article, Sonja Rzepski, a JD candidate in environmental justice and clean energy at Vermont Law School  discusses the contrasting climate change policies of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Harris is highlighted as an advocate for environmental justice, known for her litigation against environmental violations and support for clean energy initiatives. Her potential administration would likely focus on national climate legislation and increased international cooperation. Conversely, Trump is described as skeptical of climate change, with his tenure marked by deregulation and fossil fuel expansion. A second Trump term might further reduce environmental protections and oppose climate policies. The article emphasizes that the election’s outcome will greatly affect US and global climate strategies.

Through the lens of climate change, the Democratic Party nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former President Donald Trump could not have more significant differences in perspective. Although climate change has yet to have a substantial voice on the campaign trails, diving into the candidates’ past litigation and legislative policies can frame the projected significance of either future administration. 

Litigation 

At the Democratic convention, Harris briefly mentioned climate change. She did so only in the context of freedoms: “the freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” Yet her litigation track record speaks volumes about her relationship to environmental law and climate change advocacy. 

As California’s Attorney General, Harris led substantial environmental litigation. In one statewide investigation, Harris’s office discovered prolific hazardous waste violations at gas stations across the state. She sued the oil and gas companies responsible for the toxic leaks, leading to remediation and an 11.5 million dollar settlement. Her office also sued UHAUL for environmental hazardous waste violations and opposed a Chevron expansion plan in the state because of the implications of climate change. 

In an interview Thursday, CNN asked Harris directly if she supported a ban on fracking. In her response, she focused on how the Inflation Reduction Act created over 300,000 new clean energy jobs and added, “we can do it [have a clean energy transition] without banning fracking.” CNN posed the question because, in 2016, Harris successfully challenged large federally approved offshore fracking projects on the California coastline in her former position as attorney general. So, although the Harris campaign publically treads lightly on her past litigation actions to protect the environment, her positioning has reflected a steady effort toward environmentalism climate change mitigation. 

In contrast, the Trump campaign is confident in fully embracing his perspective and vantage point on climate change. In an interview with Elon Musk, Trump remarked, “the biggest threat is not global warming if the ocean is going to rise one-eighth of an inch over the next 400 years … [it just means] you’ll have more oceanfront property.” 

While in office as President, Trump appointed Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Before his position, Pruitt had sued the EPA multiple times in opposition to environmental protections. Trump then replaced Pruitt with Anthony Wheeler, who previously defended fossil fuel firms. Opponents likened it to having the fox guard the chicken coop. The Justice Department recorded that “the number of pollution cases referred for criminal prosecution under Trump’s EPA was the lowest in over 30 years.”

The landmark Supreme Court decision Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimundo, which overturned the Chevron deference policy (after the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council), may give even more room for weakening the administrative powers of an agency such as the EPA, which a second Trump administration could feasibly use to bolster their objectives. 

Legal Policy

“Every day, around the world, the climate crisis’s impact is stark and vivid. We are seeing it in real-time,” Harris said in a 2023 speech. “Across our nation, we see communities choked by drought, washed out by flood, and decimated by hurricanes.”

Harris, as Vice President, has demonstrated a concerted effort to show her support of climate action policy on a global level. Last year, she attended the Dubai UN Climate Conference. Additionally, she addressed climate change policies with US Asia partners in Thailand and spearheaded a US Caribbean partnership working group to combat climate change for small island nations.

Since her days as an attorney general and vice president, many see Harris as a consistent advocate for environmental justice. As reported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), she emphasized that:

It is disadvantaged and low-income communities that are on the front lines of climate impacts. Crimes against the environment are crimes against communities and people who are often poor and disenfranchised. The people who live in those communities often have no other choice but to live there.

From an unreservedly different view, Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, a global accord whose mission is to mitigate climate change. He stated that the international agreement would be detrimental to the US economy. During his presidency, Trump rolled back 125 federal environmental safeguards designed to reduce carbon emissions and policies to limit future emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Yale Climate Connections contributor Barbara Grady reported to the New York Times, “[Trump] overturned an estimated 100 environmental regulations…he shrank the EPA and required the words ‘climate change’ be removed from its website.”

On the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly said that one of his top priorities is to boost oil and gas production and free up more public land to “Drill, baby, drill.” The Trump administration also has said it wants to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act and downsize the EPA to:

Remove all red tape around oil and natural gas projects, withdraw from the Paris accord again, and oppose all the radical left’s Green New Deal policies that are designed to shut down the development of America’s abundant energy resources.

After environmental activists challenged further investment in the fossil fuel industry, the Biden administration recently froze some liquefied natural gas (LNG) permits. This year, Trump vowed that if elected, he would unfreeze said permits because global warming is just “the weather.” 

Significance of a future administration

If elected in November, President Harris would, in all likelihood, support national climate legislation, increase funding for global climate initiatives, and push for more ambitious international agreements. Her administration would continue to support the IRA in expanding renewable energy and creating green jobs. With her past litigation history, she most likely would implement stricter pollution regulations. The administration would presumptively strive to meet national and international climate goals and support environmental sustainability while strongly advocating for environmental justice.

Inferential evidence suggests that Trump’s second term would focus on deregulation and fossil fuel expansion. In alignment with his past deregulation, his administration would likely scale back oversight of mine safety, approve seismic drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, and limit the use of scientific information. It would, in tandem, work to weaken existing climate policies and end federal efforts to mitigate climate change by ending the IRA. Trump would likely refrain from participating in international climate efforts, focusing instead on fossil fuel development in the United States. 

Derek Walker, adjunct professor of international climate law at Vermont Law and Graduate School, said:

The Trump administration’s environmental agenda put lives in danger, put countless clean energy jobs at risk, and threatened America’s standing as a leader in the world, all while representing an unprecedented attack on the bedrock environmental and health protections that the American people count on.  Many of the administration’s most dangerous efforts to roll back environmental statutes were struck down by the courts, a signal of the President’s disregard for both the climate crisis and the law.  On the other hand, the Biden-Harris Administration signed the most ambitious climate laws in US history and has championed efforts to protect our most at-risk communities from the dangerous impacts of climate change.  A Harris administration can be counted on to take a serious, science-based approach to addressing climate change and to use law, policy, diplomacy, and the bully pulpit to implement and promote climate solutions. 

As Harris and Trump have no perceivable common ground on addressing climate change, the near change in American leadership will profoundly impact the arc of national and global climate action.