November 2, 2024
Harris’s policies are grounded in environmental concerns and the promise of a sustainable future, even if that means transitioning away from traditional energy sources. Trump’s policies reflect a commitment to fossil fuels, emphasizing immediate economic growth, lower energy costs, and energy independence.
As the energy landscape in the United States evolves, the policies that shape it influence not just the nation’s environmental goals, but also job creation, economic stability, and national security. Two political leaders with contrasting visions, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, each have distinct ideas for the future of energy in America, particularly in the oil and gas sectors.
Their stances, derived from years of policy experience and public statements, highlight two divergent approaches to energy policy—one that focuses on advancing renewable energy sources and another that seeks to maximize fossil fuel production. Here, we dive deep into their policies, the economic impact of each approach, and how taxes, incentives, and production goals differ under their leadership.
Kamala Harris has been a vocal advocate for addressing climate change and transitioning the U.S. economy to rely heavily on clean, renewable energy. Her work alongside President Biden has supported landmark policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering sustainable energy practices. One of the most significant pieces of legislation under her vice presidency was the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which dedicates billions of dollars in subsidies and tax credits to renewable energy projects. The act targets a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 and supports the creation of new, green energy jobs across the nation.
As part of her past legislative efforts, Harris co-sponsored the Green New Deal, aiming for net-zero emissions by 2050. The deal underscores the urgency of environmental protection and proposes a decarbonization roadmap that would replace fossil fuels with solar, wind, and electric power. This focus resonates with younger voters and environmentally conscious Americans but also raises questions about the economic impact on traditional energy sectors and those who work within them.
Despite a strong emphasis on clean energy, Harris acknowledges the current need for fossil fuels in the U.S. energy matrix. During debates, she and the Biden administration emphasized that the U.S. saw “the largest increase in domestic oil production in history” under their watch, which balances economic needs with a green energy agenda. This approach aims to avoid abrupt disruptions that could affect jobs and drive up prices, particularly for low-income Americans who are more vulnerable to energy cost spikes.
Through a mix of targeted subsidies, Harris’s policies aim to bridge the gap between fossil fuel reliance and green energy expansion. However, as fossil fuel production slows, some worry about a potential hike in energy costs and dependency on foreign energy imports.
Former President Trump’s approach to energy policy centers on the mantra of “American Energy Dominance.” Trump has long promoted fossil fuel production as a means of securing energy independence, creating jobs, and bolstering economic growth. His administration, from 2017 to 2021, focused heavily on deregulation, which involved lifting restrictions on drilling on federal lands and rescinding the Clean Power Plan. The goal was to make energy production faster and cheaper, aiming to lower energy costs for American consumers and businesses alike.
In his 2024 campaign, Trump has pledged to roll back the Inflation Reduction Act, which he believes burdens the fossil fuel industry with unnecessary limitations. His proposed policies emphasize revitalizing coal, oil, and natural gas production to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign energy sources. Trump asserts that these measures will strengthen the economy, particularly in regions dependent on fossil fuel jobs.
Trump’s deregulatory approach extends beyond mere oil and gas production. During his administration, over 100 environmental regulations were reversed or weakened, aimed at reducing “red tape” for energy companies. These actions were popular among fossil fuel corporations and those in states heavily reliant on oil and gas jobs, like Texas and North Dakota.
However, critics argue that Trump’s policies could have long-term consequences for the environment, potentially slowing the transition to renewable energy. While short-term gains in job creation and reduced energy costs appeal to many, environmental advocates caution that continuing to rely heavily on fossil fuels could make the U.S. vulnerable to climate-related economic costs in the future.
The approach to energy policy significantly impacts consumer energy prices. A Harris administration, prioritizing renewable energy and gradual fossil fuel reduction, could see prices fluctuate as fossil fuel resources become more scarce. However, proponents argue that the eventual shift to renewables will stabilize prices and lower costs in the long term.
In contrast, Trump’s fossil fuel expansion approach aims to keep energy prices low and production high. By increasing oil and gas supply, his strategy might reduce immediate costs for consumers, though this could come with environmental trade-offs. Economists have noted that an oil-dependent economy may face price volatility due to geopolitical factors outside of U.S. control, such as conflicts affecting oil supply chains.
Under Harris, tax credits and subsidies are largely directed toward renewable energy projects. The Inflation Reduction Act offers significant tax credits for companies and individuals investing in wind, solar, and electric vehicle projects. Additionally, renewable energy producers benefit from reduced tax liabilities, incentivizing green energy investments across the nation.
Trump’s administration was known for cutting taxes on fossil fuel companies and providing incentives for oil, gas, and coal production. His 2024 platform indicates an intent to restore similar incentives, arguing that they will stimulate job growth and lower energy costs for American consumers.
The job market in the energy sector stands to shift depending on each administration’s policies. Harris’s clean energy initiatives could create thousands of new jobs in wind and solar sectors, but fossil fuel-dependent states may feel the economic pinch as coal and oil jobs decline. To counteract this, Harris’s policies include provisions for retraining workers and transitioning them to green energy jobs.
Trump’s policies, however, center on protecting and expanding existing fossil fuel jobs, particularly in regions where oil and gas drive local economies. His administration's cuts to environmental regulations were meant to ensure that energy companies could operate more freely, theoretically creating more jobs without the need for workers to retrain.
Harris’s approach, emphasizing renewable energy, aims to position the U.S. as a leader in the global push for clean energy. This strategy aligns with international climate goals but faces challenges in ensuring that the U.S. has a stable energy supply during the transition.
Trump’s energy independence strategy seeks to eliminate U.S. reliance on foreign oil by producing domestically and reducing imports. While this bolsters short-term energy security, critics argue that it may not be sustainable in the long run, given the finite nature of fossil fuels.
Both Harris and Trump offer Americans a distinct path for the nation’s energy future. Harris’s policies are grounded in environmental concerns and the promise of a sustainable future, even if that means transitioning away from traditional energy sources. Trump’s policies reflect a commitment to fossil fuels, emphasizing immediate economic growth, lower energy costs, and energy independence.
The choice between these approaches is consequential, shaping not only the U.S. economy but also its environmental footprint and role in the global energy market. With both renewable energy and fossil fuel sectors vying for prominence, U.S. energy policy will likely remain a central issue for years to come.