If Kamala Harris wins: What climate action could we take – Simon Wilson

All the wars they may or may not have started, or made worse, or ended. All trade issues. And then there is the climate crisis. The UN tells us that now, right now, this is critical. They’ve been saying this for years, but that means it’s more true now than ever.

Donald Trump called climate change a “hoax.” One of the first things he did as president in 2017 was to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. Joe Biden got the country back, but Trump says he’ll get them out again as soon as he can.

In August Washington Post Trump reportedly asked the fossil fuel industry for a billion dollars at a fundraising dinner at his Florida home. He promises to expand oil and gas production and undermine the transition to renewable energy.

If it wins any chance of keeping global warming below 2°C in the next 10 years, let alone 1.5°C, it will almost certainly disappear.

Would President Kamala Harris have been much better?

Harris attended COP28, the global climate conference in Dubai last year, and said: “The urgency of this moment is clear: the clock is no longer just ticking, it’s knocking, and we have to catch up. And we cannot afford to be gradual. We need transformative change and exponential impact.”

She also said: “To keep our important 1.5 degrees Celsius target within reach, we must have the ambition to meet this moment, accelerate our ongoing work, increase our investment and lead with courage and conviction.”

An awkward question arises. Who is “we”, Kamala?

Harris used to be a climate champion. As a senator, she co-authored the Green New Deal. As vice president, she used her tie-breaking vote in the Senate in 2022 to introduce the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), widely considered the largest climate change measure in American history. Not a single Republican voted for the IRA, and Trump wants to defund it.

But while American oil and gas production reached record levels under Trump, that record was broken by Joe Biden. They’ve never drilled more than they’re drilling now, and Harris boasted about it during her televised debate with Trump in September.

Can Harris become a climate champion again?

The stakes are really high. Last year was by far the hottest on record, with carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere at record levels, despite supposed commitments to reduce them.

But that’s not the point. The stakes are now so high because time is running out: the key deadline is not 2050, as our own government and many others like, but 2030 and 2035.

As UN climate change chief Simon Still said last week: “Greenhouse gas emissions (net) need to be reduced by 43% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.” By 2035 it will be 60%. “This is critical to limiting global warming to 1.5°C this century to prevent the worst climate impacts. Every fraction of a degree matters as climate disasters rapidly worsen.” The next global climate conference, COP29, starts next week in Baju, Azerbaijan. Still said existing climate plans “fall far short of what is needed to stop global warming from crippling every economy and destroying billions of lives and livelihoods in every country.”

But he also said: “In contrast, much bolder new national climate plans can do more than just prevent climate chaos – if done right, they can transform people’s lives and bring prosperity to every country.”

Stay hopeful because the change we need is possible. Can Harris achieve this? Here are four ways she could do that. Mostly they are about money.

1. Refrain from “loss and damage” as you promised.

Much of global warming is caused by emissions from developed countries, but the worst effects are largely felt by everyone else.

The Loss and Damage Fund, an initiative initiated by small island and African countries, was set up in Dubai last year to provide compensation for this, with initial contributions of just over NZ$1 billion.

But the fund failed.

Some countries gave very little: the US pledged NZ$29 million; Japan isn’t quite $17 million. Contributions are expected to be annual, but this year only Austria and South Korea have made any commitments. Many rich countries minimize disaster aid, choosing instead to invest in renewable energy projects where they can make money.

And even the estimated target amounts are extremely insufficient. The World Bank estimates that losses and damages caused by climate change will amount to $970 billion per year by 2030.

If President Harris truly wants to take the lead on climate change with “courage and conviction,” increasing the loss and damage fund would be a good start.

2. Make America’s climate goal great again.

While nearly all countries have agreed to significantly reduce emissions, the COP conferences have given each of them the power to determine how and when they will do so and to report on their own progress. They call it their “National Development Contribution” or NDC.

You noticed the loopholes, right?

Still said last week that countries had made “only modest progress relative to what was expected.” Back in April, he said that the G20 – the world’s 20 leading economic powers, which together are responsible for 80% of global emissions – “urgently need to step up their action.” America is number one on this list. Its NDC commits to cutting emissions by 50-52% by 2030, but the country is not even remotely close to achieving this. It also has a net-zero emissions target by 2050 that it, like many countries including New Zealand, can hide behind.

The new NDCs are due next year and Scheel suggested doing an ABC test.

They must be ambitious, that is, cover the entire economy and cover all greenhouse gases in a way that “maintains the 1.5 degree target.”

They need to be divided into sectors and gases. And they must be credible, which means “backed by substantial regulations, laws and funding.”

ABC, Still added, means having clear goals for 2030 and a “time horizon” for 2035. This is code for “stop talking about net zero by 2050,” which is what most countries are currently doing.

If this is what President Harris means when he says, “We can’t afford gradualism,” then adopting and implementing the world’s leading NDC system is a great way to do it.

3. Get those financiers in order.

Even when they help, they often aren’t very helpful. Developing countries currently pay $670 billion a year in debt financing to the rich, developed world. This is money they could spend on preparing for and preventing climate change.

Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley and Kenyan President William Ruto are leading a campaign to change this situation. They want creditors to consider debt forgiveness. And instead of loans and private investments that require “competitive” rates of return, they want grants and loans at very low interest rates.

Still supports them. He called for debt relief and a “quantum leap” in climate finance, with new revenue sources such as a shipping emissions tax.

“Every day, trillions of dollars are being deployed by finance ministers, CEOs, investors, climate bankers and development bankers. It’s time to change those dollars,” he said at a financial industry event in London in April.

Financial reform will be on the agenda in Azerbaijan. If Harris wants that “transformative change” with “exponential impact,” here’s how to get it.

4. Become a land of wind and sun.

The final communique from last year’s COP28 in Dubai included a pledge to triple global renewable energy.

The World Resources Institute called it “the biggest step the world can take to meet our global climate goals.”

The most obvious ways to do this are offshore wind farms, of which America already has three and more are being built, and domestic solar power plants. The price of solar energy in the US fell by about 90% between 2010 and 2020.

This would be a relatively easy achievement for President Harris.

Take the pledge, show the world that he works – and creates many jobs – and help the world follow his example. If she wins tomorrow, will she do it? There’s nothing wrong with having hope.