Why Kamala Harris could be good for the planet
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
By Hugo Dixon
TINOS, Greece, Sept 3 (Reuters Breakingviews) -Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax”, while Kamala Harris says it is an “existential threat”. Those who care about limiting global warming will therefore be hoping the U.S. vice president wins the race for the White House.
Scrutinise Harris’ words since she became the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee and there’s little to go on, though she told CNN last week it was necessary to guard against the climate “crisis”. She has been pursuing a policy of “strategic ambiguity” on energy policy, aides told Reuters last month. She is anxious not to put off undecided voters in swing states, especially gas-producing Pennsylvania, by trumpeting her climate credentials too loudly.
That said, if the Democrats gain control of the House of Representatives as well as the White House in November’s election, Harris could pursue an ambitious climate agenda at home and abroad. Although President Joe Biden was able to achieve quite a lot with his Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which subsidises green technology, Congress limited his room for manoeuvre.
DOMESTIC ACTION
Biden set a target for cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. But the United States, the world’s second largest polluter after China, is currently on track to reduce emissions by only 35-43%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. With just six years to go, it will be hard to make up the shortfall entirely. Even so, Harris would be under pressure to come up with measures to narrow the gap.
Like other countries the United States is also supposed to say next year how much it will cut emissions by 2035 as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Harris could afford to set an ambitious target of, say, a reduction of 65% versus 2005 levels, because there’s sufficient time for investments that lower carbon emissions to pay off. But that would require decisive action soon after taking office.
One question is what tools a Harris administration might use to hit both the existing 2030 target and a new 2035 one, says Adair Turner, chair of the UK-based Energy Transitions Commission. There are three main options: more subsidies along the lines of the IRA; tighter regulations on carbon emissions from power stations, petrol-powered vehicles and other big polluters; and taxing emitters by putting a price on carbon.
Subsidies are inefficient and costly at a time when the U.S. government is struggling to rein in its budget deficit. Many economists prefer taxing carbon because it is the most efficient way of curbing emissions and raises cash. However, it could push up the cost of living.
Harris advocated carbon pricing when seeking the Democratic nomination in 2019, while promising to shield households from the expense by giving them back a dividend from the proceeds. But it’s hard to see a big push in this direction unless the Democrats win a majority in Congress. Regulation might therefore end up carrying much of the burden of curbing emissions.
One thing Harris almost certainly will not do is curb U.S. production of oil and gas, which has reached record levels during Biden’s presidency. The vice president reversed her previous view that the government should ban fracking on federal land and last week said she will not change her current position.
But those who want to phase out fossil fuels should not be too worried. After all, much of the increased U.S. oil and gas production has gone to European countries, which needed an alternative to Russian hydrocarbons after Moscow invaded Ukraine. More important is that the United States curbs consumption.
FINANCE AND TRADE
What a possible Harris administration does abroad may be as vital as what it does at home, says Peter Hill, who ran the United Nations’ climate conference in Glasgow in 2021. This is because emerging and developing countries such as India, which contributed little to carbon pollution in the past, are still ramping up their emissions, he writes in a forthcoming paper.
Helping these countries green their economies rapidly will reduce global warming. But there are other reasons for the United States to provide support. First, if Washington doesn’t provide a competitive offer, it will lose out to China which is also wooing countries in the Global South. Second, the more developing countries suffer from climate change, the more their citizens will try to migrate to richer and cooler countries, such as the United States.
The Group of Seven large industrial countries already has a plan to help developing countries decarbonise their economies, which I helped craft. Harris has been enthusiastic about this scheme, according to a White House official. She also understands the importance of investing in poorer countries as part of her work on tackling the root causes of migration from Central America, the official said.
If Harris wanted to supercharge these initiatives, she would have several options, especially if she can persuade Congress to provide some cash. One would be to roll out what Brian Deese, one of her advisers, last month called a “clean energy Marshall Plan”. This would subsidise developing countries to buy U.S.-made green technology.
Another option is to scale up the World Bank and other multilateral development banks so they can fund the green transition. The Biden administration has been pushing these institutions to squeeze more out of their existing balance sheets and mobilise private sector capital. Harris could build on this work by recapitalising these banks.
But climate finance should be only one element of a strategy to engage with the Global South. The other is trade. The Biden administration has advocated “friendshoring” – a plan to build up supply chains in allied countries to avoid excessive dependency on China. But its policies, including the IRA, have at times built American industrial strength at the expense of other countries, including its friends.
A key question for a Harris presidency would be how much it is willing to work with allies on a global green industrial policy. And those countries’ willingness to reciprocate will depend on how much the next U.S. administration curbs emissions at home.
All these ideas are up in the air until the November election. But one thing is certain. The planet is frying and ambitious climate leadership from a Harris presidency is one of the best hopes to limit the damage.
Follow @Hugodixon on X
Graphic: Where greenhouse gas emissions come from https://reut.rs/3MLVSSh
Editing by Peter Thal Larsen and Oliver Taslic
Tin mới
Khước từ trách nhiệm: các tổ chức thuộc XM Group chỉ cung cấp dịch vụ khớp lệnh và truy cập Trang Giao dịch trực tuyến của chúng tôi, cho phép xem và/hoặc sử dụng nội dung có trên trang này hoặc thông qua trang này, mà hoàn toàn không có mục đích thay đổi hoặc mở rộng. Việc truy cập và sử dụng như trên luôn phụ thuộc vào: (i) Các Điều kiện và Điều khoản; (ii) Các Thông báo Rủi ro; và (iii) Khước từ trách nhiệm toàn bộ. Các nội dung như vậy sẽ chỉ được cung cấp dưới dạng thông tin chung. Đặc biệt, xin lưu ý rằng các thông tin trên Trang Giao dịch trực tuyến của chúng tôi không phải là sự xúi giục, mời chào để tham gia bất cứ giao dịch nào trên các thị trường tài chính. Giao dịch các thị trường tài chính có rủi ro cao đối với vốn đầu tư của bạn.
Tất cả các tài liệu trên Trang Giao dịch trực tuyến của chúng tôi chỉ nhằm các mục đích đào tạo/cung cấp thông tin và không bao gồm - và không được coi là bao gồm - các tư vấn tài chính, đầu tư, thuế, hoặc giao dịch, hoặc là một dữ liệu về giá giao dịch của chúng tôi, hoặc là một lời chào mời, hoặc là một sự xúi giục giao dịch các sản phẩm tài chính hoặc các chương trình khuyến mãi tài chính không tự nguyện.
Tất cả nội dung của bên thứ ba, cũng như nội dung của XM như các ý kiến, tin tức, nghiên cứu, phân tích, giá cả, các thông tin khác hoặc các đường dẫn đến trang web của các bên thứ ba có trên trang web này được cung cấp với dạng "nguyên trạng", là các bình luận chung về thị trường và không phải là các tư vấn đầu tư. Với việc các nội dung đều được xây dựng với mục đích nghiên cứu đầu tư, bạn cần lưu ý và hiểu rằng các nội dung này không nhằm mục đích và không được biên soạn để tuân thủ các yêu cầu pháp lý đối với việc quảng bá nghiên cứu đầu tư này và vì vậy, được coi như là một tài liệu tiếp thị. Hãy chắc chắn rằng bạn đã đọc và hiểu Thông báo về Nghiên cứu Đầu tư không độc lập và Cảnh báo Rủi ro tại đây liên quan đến các thông tin ở trên.
