The stark differences between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s approaches to the oil and gas industry are reflective of their broader policy orientations and political philosophies. While Harris has positioned herself as an advocate for environmental justice and a proponent of clean energy, Trump’s tenure was marked by a strong alignment with fossil fuel interests and deregulation efforts aimed at boosting oil and gas production. Here we’ll explore these contrasting histories and their implications for the industry.
Kamala Harris
Kamala Harris’s career has been characterized by a focus on environmental justice and climate action:
- As a Prosecutor: Harris established an environmental justice unit as San Francisco’s District Attorney, targeting environmental crimes. This unit was tasked with holding polluters accountable and ensuring that communities affected by environmental degradation received justice. It was an early indication of her commitment to using legal frameworks to protect the environment.
- As Attorney General of California: Harris secured around $50 million in settlements from major oil companies like BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Phillips 66 for violations related to hazardous materials and waste. She also initiated criminal proceedings against Plains All-American Pipeline for a significant oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 2015. Her office’s investigation into Exxon Mobil over allegations of misleading the public about climate change, although not resulting in a lawsuit, demonstrated her willingness to scrutinize major corporations for environmental misconduct.
- As a U.S. Senator: Harris co-sponsored the Green New Deal, a comprehensive proposal aimed at addressing climate change and economic inequality. She also introduced legislation to support environmental justice policies, including proposals to create new divisions at federal agencies to assess the impact of legislation on vulnerable communities. Her legislative record includes support for renewable energy incentives, stricter emissions standards, and measures to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. Although she initially supported a fracking ban, she later moderated her stance, reflecting a pragmatic approach to balancing environmental goals with economic considerations.
- As Vice President: Harris has played a key role in promoting the Biden administration’s climate policies, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This legislation aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through investments in clean energy infrastructure and technologies. Harris’s advocacy has been instrumental in advancing policies that prioritize environmental justice, renewable energy, and the reduction of carbon emissions. Her public statements consistently emphasize the urgency of addressing climate change and holding polluters accountable.
Harris’s approach has been consistent with a transition towards renewable energy and stricter regulation of the oil and gas industry. Her career demonstrates a persistent focus on integrating environmental considerations into legal and policy frameworks, reflecting her broader commitment to climate action and social equity.
Donald Trump
In contrast, Donald Trump’s presidency was marked by policies that favored the oil and gas industry:
- Deregulation: Trump’s administration rolled back numerous environmental regulations, arguing that they hindered economic growth and energy independence. Significant rollbacks included easing restrictions on methane emissions from oil and gas operations, lifting the moratorium on coal leasing on federal lands, and rolling back fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. These actions were part of a broader strategy to reduce regulatory burdens on the fossil fuel industry and stimulate domestic production.
- Support for Fossil Fuels: Trump championed the expansion of fossil fuel production, emphasizing the importance of oil, natural gas, and coal to the U.S. economy. His administration approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, projects that had faced significant opposition from environmental groups and Indigenous communities. Trump’s support extended to offshore drilling, with proposals to open nearly all U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas exploration, reversing protections put in place by previous administrations.
- Energy Dominance Agenda: Trump’s “America First Energy Plan” aimed to make the U.S. energy independent and dominant in global energy markets. This plan focused heavily on increasing domestic oil and gas production, exporting fossil fuels, and reducing reliance on foreign energy sources. The administration’s policies included promoting natural gas exports, supporting the development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, and encouraging investment in fossil fuel infrastructure.
- Climate Change Stance: Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, an international accord aimed at mitigating climate change. He often expressed skepticism about climate science and downplayed the risks associated with global warming. His administration’s policies prioritized economic growth and energy production over environmental protection, reflecting a fundamental departure from the international consensus on climate action.
Trump’s policies were designed to boost the oil and gas sector, reduce regulatory burdens, and promote fossil fuel use. His administration’s actions were aligned with the interests of the fossil fuel industry, aiming to enhance U.S. energy production and maintain competitive advantage in global energy markets.
Policy Outcomes and Industry Impact
The differences between Harris and Trump’s approaches have significant implications for the oil and gas industry:
- Regulatory Environment: Under Trump, the industry benefited from reduced regulatory oversight, leading to increased production and potentially higher short-term profits. The deregulation efforts were aimed at lowering operational costs and fostering investment in domestic energy projects. In contrast, Harris’s policies advocate for stricter environmental regulations, which could increase compliance costs for the industry but promote long-term sustainability and public health. Harris’s approach focuses on mitigating environmental harm and transitioning to cleaner energy sources.
- Market Dynamics: Trump’s policies aimed at expanding fossil fuel production to achieve energy independence and dominance, potentially leading to an oversupply in the domestic market and exerting downward pressure on global oil prices. Harris supports a shift towards renewable energy, which could reduce demand for oil and gas, drive innovation in clean energy technologies, and create new market opportunities in the green economy. This shift is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy sustainability.
- Climate and Environmental Goals: Harris’s focus on climate action aligns with global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a low-carbon economy. Her policies prioritize environmental justice, aiming to address the disproportionate impact of pollution on vulnerable communities. Trump’s policies often prioritized economic growth and energy production over environmental concerns, reflecting a different set of priorities. The divergence in their approaches underscores the broader ideological divide between progressive environmental policies and conservative economic strategies.
Speculation on Future Impacts
- Under Harris: If Kamala Harris were to become president, her policies might include even stronger environmental regulations, increased investments in renewable energy, and enhanced international climate cooperation. These actions could accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, potentially leading to a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and production. The oil and gas industry might face increased regulatory scrutiny and higher compliance costs, but also opportunities to innovate and adapt to a changing energy landscape. Harris’s presidency could lead to significant progress in reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change.
- Under Trump: A hypothetical return of Donald Trump to the presidency would likely result in a renewed focus on deregulation and fossil fuel expansion. His administration could reinstate policies aimed at boosting domestic oil and gas production, reducing regulatory barriers, and prioritizing economic growth over environmental protection. This approach could lead to increased short-term production and job creation in the fossil fuel sector but might exacerbate environmental degradation and climate risks. Trump’s presidency could also impact international climate agreements and cooperation, potentially undermining global efforts to address climate change.
—
The contrasting histories of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump with the oil and gas industry highlight two fundamentally different visions for America’s energy future. Harris’s career reflects a commitment to environmental justice and a transition towards renewable energy, emphasizing long-term sustainability and climate action. Trump’s presidency emphasized deregulation and the expansion of fossil fuel production, prioritizing economic growth and energy independence. These differences underscore the broader political and ideological divides shaping U.S. energy policy and the future of the oil and gas industry. As the nation grapples with the challenges of climate change and energy transition, the policies and leadership of its political figures will play a crucial role in determining the path forward for the energy sector.