- Trump’s energy policies emphasize fossil fuel expansion, deregulation, and oil exports, potentially lowering global oil prices but harming the environment.
- Harris’s energy policies focus on transitioning to renewable energy, rejoining climate agreements, and regulating the oil industry, leading to higher short-term energy prices but benefiting the environment and climate.
- Global oil markets could experience price volatility depending on the U.S. election outcome, with oil-dependent economies facing challenges under Harris’s policies.
- Environmental impacts vary drastically between candidates, with Trump’s policies risking greater harm to ecosystems and wildlife, while Harris prioritizes protection and conservation.
- Climate change remains a pivotal issue, with Trump’s policies likely worsening emissions and Harris promoting a global shift toward cleaner energy.
The oil and gas industry has always been a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, but its future may be dramatically influenced by the policies of the next U.S. president. With the 2024 presidential election on the horizon, voters will likely face a clear choice between two very different approaches to energy policy. The potential outcomes could affect not only the United States but also other oil-producing nations, global markets, and the environment.
This article explores the candidates’ policies on oil, gas, and energy, compares their stances, and discusses the likely global impacts on business, the environment, and climate change.
Candidate 1: Donald Trump
Plans, Policies, and Past Statements
- Supports expanding U.S. oil and gas production through traditional methods such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and offshore drilling.
- Advocates for reduced federal regulations on the oil and gas industry, arguing that environmental protections stifle economic growth.
- Previously rolled back several environmental regulations during his first term, including the Clean Power Plan and methane emissions rules.
- Opposes the Paris Agreement on climate change and withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in 2020.
- Calls for more investments in U.S. LNG (liquefied natural gas) export infrastructure.
Supporting Donors and Lobby Groups
- Receives support from the fossil fuel industry, including large oil and gas corporations.
- Key donors: Koch Industries, Chevron, and ExxonMobil.
- Supported by organizations like the American Petroleum Institute (API) and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which advocate for free-market policies and minimal regulations on energy production.
Potential Global Impact
- A Trump administration would likely push for more aggressive expansion of U.S. oil exports, increasing U.S. competitiveness in global markets.
- This could lead to lower global oil prices, affecting revenues in oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Nigeria.
- Strengthening ties with oil-dependent allies like Canada, which may benefit from U.S. investments in pipelines and energy infrastructure.
Candidate 2: Kamala Harris
Plans, Policies, and Past Statements
- Strongly advocates for a transition to renewable energy and green technology, targeting net-zero emissions by 2050.
- Proposes stricter regulations on methane emissions and banning fracking on public lands.
- Supports rejoining the Paris Agreement and leading global efforts to combat climate change.
- Plans to phase out federal subsidies for fossil fuels and redirect investment towards wind, solar, and green hydrogen technologies.
- Advocates for carbon pricing or cap-and-trade systems to incentivize clean energy transition.
Supporting Donors and Lobby Groups
- Backed by environmental advocacy groups like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
- Receives support from the green energy sector, including companies involved in solar, wind, and electric vehicle infrastructure.
- Funded by donors such as NextEra Energy, Tesla, and environmental lobby groups.
Potential Global Impact
- A Harris administration’s shift away from oil and gas could disrupt global energy markets by reducing U.S. oil production and consumption.
- Countries heavily reliant on fossil fuel exports to the U.S. may experience economic instability.
- The focus on renewable energy could accelerate global green energy initiatives, leading to more international cooperation on climate issues, particularly with Europe.
Potential Effects on the U.S. and Global Oil Industry
The outcome of the 2024 election could have profound effects on the U.S. oil and gas industry, with global reverberations.
Under Trump:
- Continued investment in U.S. oil and gas could enhance the U.S.’s role as a dominant energy exporter, particularly in LNG markets.
- Increased supply could further depress global oil prices, negatively impacting countries dependent on higher prices to sustain their economies.
- Reduced regulations may provide short-term growth in domestic oil production but could also lead to long-term risks for companies navigating fluctuating global demand and environmental backlash.
Under Harris:
- U.S. oil and gas production would likely contract, potentially leading to supply shortages and higher prices globally.
- Reduced U.S. demand for fossil fuels could shift global energy markets toward cleaner energy sources, with nations investing more in wind, solar, and nuclear.
- Oil-dependent countries might need to diversify their economies to survive the global energy transition.
Impact on the Environment and Wildlife
Under Trump:
- Environmental deregulation could lead to increased land and marine exploitation for oil production, resulting in habitat destruction and pollution.
- Relaxation of methane rules and expanded drilling in sensitive ecosystems, such as the Arctic, could further threaten wildlife, including endangered species like polar bears and migratory birds.
Under Harris:
- A focus on renewable energy would reduce fossil fuel extraction, lowering the risk of spills, pollution, and habitat destruction in areas like the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan wilderness.
- Renewable energy development, though less harmful, still carries risks for wildlife, especially birds and bats that can be affected by wind farms and solar plants.
Climate Change Implications
Under Trump:
- Increased reliance on fossil fuels would contribute to higher greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating global warming.
- Opposition to international climate agreements could weaken global efforts to address climate change, causing long-term environmental degradation.
Under Harris:
- Rejoining the Paris Agreement and prioritizing emissions reductions would position the U.S. as a leader in global climate action.
- The shift to renewables and reduction in oil production could significantly curb U.S. carbon emissions, encouraging other nations to follow suit.
The 2024 U.S. presidential election holds significant consequences for the future of the oil and gas industry, both domestically and globally. Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance promises continued growth in oil production and reduced regulations, potentially boosting short-term economic gains but at a steep environmental cost. On the other hand, Kamala Harris’s green energy agenda aims to pivot the U.S. toward renewable energy, positioning the country as a leader in climate action while challenging traditional oil markets. The next president’s energy policies will not only reshape the U.S. landscape but also have far-reaching impacts on global markets, wildlife, and the ongoing battle against climate change. As the world watches, the choice between drilling and transitioning could define the future of energy for decades to come.