Trump and Harris’s Debate Statements on Climate: What They Mean for the Market
(To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter .)
When President Biden took office in 2021, before any new regulations or landmark climate legislation were passed, it was clear that his presidency had already made strides in addressing climate change simply by sending a signal to the marketplace that fossil fuels are not the future.
This signal stemmed from policy plans, campaign promises, and ultimately, an executive order signed within his first few days in office, urging government officials to prioritize climate change in their policymaking. Almost immediately, companies responded, adjusting their strategic plans to reflect the prospect of a more climate-friendly approach from Washington.
The current election cycle has seen a limited number of climate campaign promises or platforms. In fact, some of the most extensive discussion on climate and energy unfolded during a few minutes in Tuesday’s presidential debate. Despite lacking detail, this discussion provided a valuable opportunity to assess the potential direction of climate policy and, to some extent, the market.
It’s worth starting with Vice President Kamala Harris. In 2019, she ran as a progressive with bold climate commitments—including a proposal for $10 trillion in climate spending and support for the Green New Deal policy platform. Consequently, even some of the climate activists who held reservations about Biden were prepared to rally behind her, hoping she would pursue ambitious new environmental initiatives.
In this week’s debate, she offered little new regarding climate. Instead, she emphasized continuity, highlighting the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—the most significant climate legislation in the country’s history—and advocating for continued investments in clean technology manufacturing. “We have invested in clean energy to the point that we are opening up factories around the world,” she said.
In other words, she positioned herself as the climate continuity candidate rather than a champion for an expanded policy agenda. Continuity may not be a captivating campaign slogan, but it would nonetheless facilitate the deployment of clean technologies. The Biden Administration has spent two years establishing the framework for implementing the IRA, including the creation of programs that investors and developers now rely on. The assurance of these rules remaining in place can help stabilize the market. This doesn’t necessarily imply that she wouldn’t offer anything new on climate if she were to become president. For instance, certain policy revisions could be beneficial for optimizing the IRA’s implementation.
She also pledged to invest in diverse energy sources, stating that “we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.” This statement disappointed climate activists who would prefer to see her adopt an aggressive stance toward the oil industry. However, it also offers some reassurance to energy experts that she doesn’t intend to disrupt oil markets while the world navigates this transition.
Former President Donald Trump, on the other hand, provided even less clarity regarding his climate plans. In fact, he avoided discussing climate change when prompted, instead seizing the opportunity to outline his plans to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. “What they have given to China is unbelievable,” he said. “We’ll put tariffs on those cars so they can’t come into our country.”
This response is revealing. The Biden Administration is currently attempting to strike a delicate balance, aiming to incentivize the creation of a domestic clean energy supply chain for the long term while relying on Chinese imports in the short term. Trump’s agenda would disrupt this balance, altering supply chains, capital investments, and strategic planning. Overall, this would leave domestic clean technology deployment in a precarious position, with products crucial to the transition absent from the U.S. market
The climate discussion in the debate offered merely a snapshot, touching upon the surface of relevant climate questions. However, it’s evident that Harris can be viewed as a voice for continuity, while Trump appears to be a candidate eager to dismantle the country’s climate and clean energy ambitions. Before any laws are signed or regulations are implemented, businesses will respond to these signals.