As the United States gears up for one of the most consequential elections in its history, the future of climate action is at stake. With Kamala Harris and Donald Trump offering starkly different visions, voters face a choice between aggressive climate policies and a return to fossil-fuel-driven economics. This divide reflects America’s domestic priorities and signals to the world whether the U.S. will lead or lag in addressing the climate crisis.

The Climate Crisis is No Longer Theoretical

For millions of Americans, climate change is no longer an abstract threat but a lived reality. From record-breaking heatwaves to devastating wildfires, the impact of global warming is increasingly visible across the country. As Carl Nasman, BBC climate reporter, pointed out, “In 2024, it was pretty striking. We saw at least 20 different weather or climate-related events that caused at least $1 billion in damage per event.” These events, including floods, hurricanes, and wildfires, devastate communities and place a growing financial burden on the country.

The climate crisis is felt daily in cities like Phoenix and Washington D.C., where heatwaves pushed summer temperatures to unbearable levels. “Walking around was almost impossible,” Nasman recalls, noting how D.C. experienced over 50 days of temperatures above 90°F (32°C). Climate change, he adds, has become “damaging, costly, destructive.”

America’s Growing Climate Consensus

Despite the political divide, public opinion in the U.S. has shifted significantly over the past decade. According to Justin Rowland, BBC climate editor, there is now a “growing consensus” on climate change, with 75–80% of Americans accepting the underlying science. “Two decades ago, there was great scepticism about whether this was real, whether the scientific evidence was valid,” Rowland said. However, most Americans now recognise the reality of climate change, even if political disagreements remain over how to address it.

This shift is crucial but hasn’t erased the deep political divide. While the Biden administration has pursued one of the most aggressive climate agendas in U.S. history, Donald Trump has dismissed many of these initiatives as economically detrimental. As Rowland puts it, the debate is no longer about *whether* climate change is real but about “how to tackle the problem.”

Trump’s Climate Stance: Denial Evolved

Trump’s climate rhetoric has evolved since his first term. He no longer claims that climate change is a “hoax,” but he continues to portray green energy as economically harmful. “They spent trillions of dollars on things concerning the Green New Scam. It’s a scam,” Trump declared during this year’s campaign. He focuses on protecting industries like coal and oil and has pledged to end federal subsidies for electric vehicles and other green initiatives.

One particularly telling moment came when Trump said, “I will end the electric vehicle mandate on day one, thereby saving the U.S. auto industry from complete obliteration.” His position is clear: green energy is a “bad deal” for America.

Trump’s climate policies reflect a broader scepticism about regulation and government intervention. During his first presidency, he rolled back over 100 environmental rules, arguing that these regulations stifled business growth. However, as Nasman points out, “There was one study done that showed that there was probably minimal impact on the economy from those regulations.” Instead, the rollbacks allowed polluting industries to thrive at the expense of public health and the environment.

Kamala Harris: A Green Future on the Horizon?

In stark contrast, Kamala Harris represents a continuation of the Biden administration’s ambitious climate policies. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which she helped push through Congress, remains a centrepiece of this agenda. The IRA directs billions of dollars into green energy investments, aiming to cut U.S. emissions by 42% by 2030. As Nasman highlights, the Biden-Harris administration’s policies include “hundreds of billions of dollars into green energy, green investments.”

Harris, however, must balance her climate advocacy with political pragmatism. In key battleground states like Pennsylvania, where the fossil fuel industry remains a major economic driver, Harris has cautiously supported fracking. “I will not ban fracking,” she said during a debate, recognising its role in keeping energy costs low and maintaining jobs.

Nevertheless, Harris’s climate policies represent some of the most ambitious in U.S. history. Her campaign emphasises the creation of green jobs and the potential for the U.S. to become a global leader in renewable energy. As Nasman puts it, “It’s all about how you sell it these days,” noting that Harris is framing the green transition in terms of economic benefits rather than solely as a response to global environmental needs.

A Global Impact

The U.S. has always played a critical role in global climate negotiations, and the upcoming election will have significant international repercussions. When Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement during his first term, it signalled to other nations that they, too, could step back from climate commitments. Brazil, under Jair Bolsonaro, responded with a surge in Amazon deforestation. If Trump were to return to office, many fear that his climate scepticism could embolden other leaders to abandon their own green initiatives.

On the other hand, a Harris presidency could reinforce America’s role as a climate leader. Under Biden, the U.S. rejoined the Paris Agreement and pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Harris would likely build on this, pushing for tighter fuel economy regulations and more investment in clean energy. However, as Rowland points out, even with the Biden administration’s aggressive policies, “they’re still not on track to meet the global goals of getting to net zero by 2050.”

The Ticking Clock

Time is running out. As Nasman warns, we are fast approaching climate tipping points — moments when the damage becomes irreversible. “You’re talking about melting ice in the polar regions…you can’t put that water back,” he says, pointing to the growing threat of rising sea levels and thawing permafrost.

Yet, there is still hope. The cost of solar energy has plummeted, making it the cheapest form of electricity in many parts of the world. China, the world’s largest emitter, is nearly peaking its emissions. These are signs that positive tipping points can still be reached, but only if the world’s largest economies — particularly the U.S. — continue to lead.

The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher

As the U.S. election draws closer, the choice before voters is clear. A Trump presidency would likely reverse much of the progress made on climate action, cementing America’s reliance on fossil fuels for years to come. A Harris presidency, though not without its compromises, offers a path toward a greener, more sustainable future.

Rowland sums it up best: “This election could be one of the last chances the U.S. has to play a pivotal role in steering the world away from climate catastrophe.” For America — and the world — the stakes could not be higher.

Ultimately, the decision made in November will not just shape the future of the United States. It will reverberate globally, influencing how other nations respond to the climate crisis. As Rowland aptly concludes, “Every little degree matters. The more we do now, the more Clement…the temperatures for the generations that follow us will be.” Time may be running out, but the choice remains in our hands.