For decades, there has been a deep disconnect between what scientists say is the extent of the threat posed by unabated human-caused global warming and how politicians respond. And this has never been clearer than in the 2024 US presidential race.

Last May, Washington Post clarified Former President Donald J. Trump was hoping to exchange a reversal of climate regulations for a billion dollars in oil industry campaign donations. As global temperatures hit new record highs, the threat of a radical reversal of White House policy during Trump’s possible second term mounts, deadly flooding regularly makes headlines around the world the week before the election) and new studies show climate agreement targets set in 2015 are moving further unattainable.

Despite all these flashing warning signs, on the surface this was far from a climate election, given the economic and social issues that were at the top of voters’ concerns and hence their party platform.

These real-time concerns are a big reason why both President Joe Biden and his successor are on the list when the topic of climate and energy comes up in debates or other forums, with Trump declaring his love of “liquid gold” (oil) and fracking. Vice President Kamala Harris would shift from a rapid acknowledgment of the serious climate threat to emphasizing record oil and gas production to lower consumer costs.

After all, the contortions required to piece together electoral college victory paths always make campaigns a lousy barometer of what presidents can and will do while in office.

In fact, this is a climate election where the absolute most important thing is: policies, budgets and fundamentals.

Trump’s disdain for actions aimed at global warming and his determination to take revenge by reversing it are clear: “on the first dayPresident Biden’s executive orders on energy and climate.

His Agenda 47 website There is a section on the expansion of nuclear power, including codifying Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules that impede the flow of new plant designs. But on The Joe Rogan show is on October 25He expressed concern about nuclear power plant costs and risks: “They get too big, too complex, too expensive…. “I think there is some danger in nuclear.” This weaves wildly even in climate-energy policy.

It is difficult to reconcile Trump’s platform stance on nuclear with his attacks on the Biden administration’s groundbreaking Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Like James Pethokoukis free market focused American Enterprise Institute wrote recently“Trump’s vote for nuclear energy abundance appears at odds with his own view discontent For the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) significant IRA financing “We are going to red states that include significant nuclear energy incentives.”

E2, a nonpartisan organization, found in August that in two years “more than half of all (IRA) projects were in Republican districts, and 19 of the top 20 congressional districts for clean energy investments were held by Republicans.” You can examine these in more detail. an online map.

Although you may argue that the world is not ending during Trump’s first term, there is ample evidence that this is essentially just a test run and does not adequately reflect what Trump can do starting January 20th. senior environmental officials told CNN’s Ella Nilsen last July:

“‘We lost a lot of time at the beginning of the Trump administration because we weren’t adequately prepared for a runoff,'” Mandy Gunasekara, former chief of staff at the Environmental Protection Agency under Trump, told CNN. The lesson learned, she said, was to act quickly. area more organized this time focused on gutting key institutions that oversee environmental protection and loosening most, if not all, of Biden’s key climate rules. David Bernhardt, who served as Interior Secretary in the Trump administration, said this could happen “very quickly.”

both Gunasekara And Bernhardt contributed to the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 template for the second Trump term. Although the former president rejected the plan during the campaign, the architects are deeply committed to his team, and the plan’s stated goals dovetail with Trump’s effort to drain agency budgets and regulatory power.

On the contrary, the Kamala Harris administration would be positioned from day one to build on the moves the Biden administration has made over the past four years, particularly the hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy investments flowing under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and IRA. Harris cast the tie-breaking vote).

Of course, Harris’s campaign statements touting an oil and gas bonanza and her retreat from a 2019 presidential primary statement supporting a fracking ban have infuriated some of the most liberal voters, as has the administration’s record on Gaza.

But in recent weeks, most climate-focused progressivesto contain Bill McKibben and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-CortezHe pressured such voters not to drop out of the race or vote for third-party candidates like the Green Party’s Jill Stein.

Costa Samaras, a climate and energy researcher at Carnegie-Mellon University and lead White House adviser on the clean energy transition through 2022 and 2023, said he understands some voters’ frustration that climate has taken a backseat in the election.

“Every ton of CO2 counts, so we need to try as much as we can to reduce climate pollution faster everywhere,” Samaras said in an interview. “But overall, I think the path that the Biden-Harris administration has laid out will ensure the continuation of the decarbonization coalition that will take us to a zero-carbon economy as quickly as possible.”