2024-10-30 15:44:00
The programs of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, vying for the American presidential election on November 5, are very different. But despite their differences, both consider fossil fuels to be one of the keys to the energy independence of the United States.
In 1992, James Carville, advisor to Bill Clinton in the 1992 American presidential election, remained famous for his scathing statement: « It’s the economy, stupid ! » (in French, “The economy is the only thing that counts!”), which has become a slogan of the Clinton campaign. In this new American election period, it’s time for “It’s the energy dominance, stupid!” »: “only energy domination matters”.
On November 5, Americans will choose between current Vice-President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump. While the United States marked its return as oil and gas power for more than two decades, energy and climate issues have remained little present in the countryside.
However, this election could prove crucial for the future of the climate. In March 2024, Carbone Brief estimated that a new Trump presidency would add four billion tonnes of CO₂ in the atmosphere by 2030 – the equivalent of the cumulative emissions of the European Union (EU) and Japan.
Kamala Harris has a more ambitious environmental policy than Trump, in line with Biden’s major investment plans, notably the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). However, there are unexpected convergences between their programs around the issue of fossil fuels. In any case, the results of the election will impact Europe, particularly with regard to energy trade with the United States.
Donald Trump, the champion of fossil fuels
If re-elected, Donald Trump proposes to continue the pro-fossil energy policy that he pursued during his first term. Summary by the slogan « drill, baby, drill »its goal is to ensure the country’s energy independence and provide inexpensive energy to Americans.
[Déjàplusde120 000abonnementsauxnewsletters[Déjàplusde120 000abonnementsauxnewslettersThe Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous aujourd’hui pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux du monde.]
Its energy program focuses on increasing national hydrocarbon production, particularly through the exploitation of unconventional oil and gas and the opening of new fields for drilling. Remember that in 2017, he also wanted to encourage the reopening of coal mines.
Trump claims a new form of energy domination (energy dominance): more than the energy independence of the United States, it is a question of establishing their power in international energy markets. To do this, he proposes to remove all regulatory and environmental barriers in order to increase oil and gas production capacities. For example, he hears remove the tax on methane emissions put in place by Biden, which targets the oil industries and which is between $900 and $1,500 per ton.
Another key element of the policy he intends to pursue if he is re-elected is the supervision of the administrations responsible for energy regulation (the Department of Energy, or DoE) and environmental protection ( the Environment Protection Agency, or EPA). During his first term, Trump placed close people at the head of these institutions, delaying for example the adoption of more ambitious standards on energy efficiency.
Long opposed to renewable energies, Trump seems to be adopting a slightly more balanced line at the end of the campaign to obtain more votes in territories which deploy wind and solar power. Indeed, the Republican camp’s relationship to renewable energies is ambiguous. Publicly, the Republicans display a decreasing support for renewable energy. In 2024, only 38% will consider the development of low-carbon energies as a priority over fossil fuels, compared to 65% in 2020.
PEW Research Center, Provided by the author
L’expression Green scamused by Trump to qualify subsidies for low-carbon technologies, illustrates this phenomenon well. However, several Republican states are at the top of the ranking in terms of capacity to wind (Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas) and solar (Texas, Florida) production and benefit from the economic benefits of these energies. They were also big beneficiaries of grants given under Biden’s IRA.
This could explain why Trump softened his position at the end of the campaign, now declaring himself “big fan” of solar energy. However, it is quite likely that Trump will reduce or even simply eliminate certain aid to low-carbon technology sectors, such as electric cars.
This program will of course come at the expense of international policies to combat climate change, which he considers to be obstacles to the American economy. As in 2017, it is likely that Trump, if re-elected, will once again leave the Paris agreement, and that he will make multilateral forums on the climate or on trade issues (by favoring protectionist policies), a workhorse of his new mandate.
Kamala Harris, between renewables and fossils
For her part, Kamala Harris’ program is a continuation of the energy and climate policies initiated by Joe Biden, with an emphasis on the energy transition and the development of low-carbon technologies.
The Biden administration’s flagship program, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), is at the heart of Harris’ proposals. This program aims to reduce American GHG emissions by 43% to 49% by 2035. It includes massive investments in low-carbon infrastructureenergy efficiency, renewable energies, but also in carbon capture and storage, which should continue with Harris.
Authors based on data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), Provided by the author
Unlike Trump, Harris plans to strengthen environmental regulations, including on methane emissions, and maintain purchase subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs) – although that she did not come out in favor of a ban on thermal vehicles.
If Harris shows support for the energy transition, she must also reassure voters in hydrocarbon basins who depend on these industries for their jobs and their economy. Indeed, the oil and gas extraction sector represents 1.2% of American GDP and all carbon-based energies represent more than 4.8 million jobs (58% of total energy sector jobs). Pennsylvania, considered a swing state capable of swinging the election, is the second largest US gas producing stateand hopes to export its gas to Europe.
Thus, Harris has greatly qualified her positions on the oil and gas industry during this campaign. If in 2019 it proposed to ban hydraulic fracturing, it now considers that it is a key technology in American energy independence. She also did not take up the Democrats’ 2020 campaign proposal which wanted to prohibit the opening of new federal lands to hydrocarbon drilling. Its program is therefore based on accelerating the deployment of renewable energies, while continuing to support the hydrocarbon industry to meet the country’s energy security needs.
This results in a delicate balance between the need to reduce GHG emissions and maintaining domestic production of fossil fuels.
An unexpected convergence on energy independence
Despite ideological and programmatic differences, Harris and Trump recognize the need to maintain domestic hydrocarbon production. The United States remains the world’s leading economy in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) – 26% of GDP in current dollars according to the World Bank in 2023 – but also the world’s leading producer of oil and gas, the largest holder of reserves coal and the second largest emitter of GHGs in the world, according to the latest edition of l’Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy.
For Donald Trump, it is about guaranteeing American supremacy in the global energy market, while for Kamala Harris, this production is seen as essential to the country’s energy security in a tense geopolitical context.
Indeed, the war in Ukraine and tensions with China have highlighted the vulnerability of international supply chains, particularly in the energy sector. Next, despite Trump’s anti-climate rhetoric, several Republican states are, in fact, leaders in renewable energy production. These projects were developed more for economic than climatic reasons, and they should continue, regardless of the political color of the future President.
Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy, 2024, Provided by the author
Trump and Harris therefore have two distinct methods, but their strategic objective remains the same: securing American supplies through hydrocarbons.
-
For Trump, this means massive deregulation of the oil and gas sector, a removal of environmental standards, increasing domestic production and establishing a dominant position in energy markets.
-
For Harris, this requires a diversified energy mix, made up of renewable energies and fossil energies, the financing of low-carbon technologies, the maintenance of hydraulic fracturing, and the subordination of climate objectives to national energy security.
In other words, regardless of the results of the American elections next November, fossil fuels will remain at the heart of the American energy mix.
What consequences for Europe?
As a result, the results of the presidential elections could well influence the relationship and energy exchanges between Europe and the United States. In the last quarter of 2023, Europe imported 17% of its oil and 50% of its LNG from the United States, which makes the American giant an essential partner.
Whatever the outcome of the elections, questions remain about American support for LNG exports to Europe. Maintaining the pause on these exports, decided under Biden, could once again cause a delicate situation in the short term for the European continent. Considered a “top priority” by the Trump camp, the development of Export dynamics could be slower with Harris.
In the event of exit from the Paris agreement, Brussels will have to arbitrate between cooperation with a strategic ally and its own climate agenda jeopardized by Trump’s pro-fossil choices. Europe would probably no longer be able to count on American cooperation regarding the supply of critical metals – cooperation which had been institutionalized with the Mineral Security Partnership de Biden.
If Kamala Harris wins, Europe and the United States would be more aligned on the energy transition. However, the massive financing granted to American energy and low-carbon technologies could also represent increased competition for European industries, particularly in the automobile sector. Thus, while the victory of Kamala Harris would offer more prospects for cooperation, these American elections underline the threats weighing on European energy security, and the need to develop a new, more resilient system.
1730473246
#unexpected #convergence #fossil #fuels
Europe energy crisis
3, the U.S. has been positioned as a major energy supplier to Europe, particularly in the context of the ongoing energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine. Both Trump and Harris’ approaches toward energy independence may send ripples across the Atlantic, impacting Europe’s energy strategies, especially concerning reliance on liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the transition to renewable energy sources.
If Trump wins, his administration might prioritize deregulation and fossil fuel production, potentially leading to an increase in U.S. exports of oil and gas to Europe. This could result in lower costs and greater oil and gas availability for European nations seeking alternatives to Russian energy supplies. However, this shift could also slow down Europe’s green transition, as it might give more leeway for continued reliance on fossil fuels in the short term.
Conversely, if Harris secures the presidency, her administration’s more balanced approach to energy production might involve supporting both renewables and fossil fuels. This could encourage collaboration between the U.S. and Europe towards a more green energy future, promoting investments in renewables while still maintaining a robust natural gas supply, which is deemed pivotal for energy security in the near term. Europe’s focus would likely remain on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and a Harris presidency may align more closely with European climate objectives.
In either scenario, the overarching narrative remains: the U.S. will play a critical role in shaping the energy landscape in Europe, but the methods and outcomes will vary significantly depending on the prevailing policies of the next American administration. The interplay between fossil fuels and renewable energies will be crucial not just for American energy security, but also for global efforts to combat climate change and ensure a sustainable future.
