Trump and Harris opposing energy policies weigh in on final election days

Democratic presidential nominee US Vice President Kamala Harris at a campaign rally at the Alliant Energy Centre in Madison, Wisconsin. AFP

No American who voted in 2000 did so for the invasion of Iraq; none in 2008 for the shale oil revolution; none in 2016 for Covid response. That’s because the policies implemented by George W. Bush, Barack Obama or Donald Trump, to handle the most critical issues of their presidential terms did not occur yet, or even begin to. Whatever their like or dislike for the specific energy and climate policies of the candidates, the president's impact on energy is dominated by macroscopic and unforeseeable events and trends. The same principle will hold true for Tuesday's election.

Of course, all these candidates and their defeated rivals campaigned with a set of more or less clear policies and principles on the energy industry and environment, but results were often unexpected. Al Gore, controversially adjudged to have lost to Mr Bush in 2000, wanted to press on with the Kyoto climate agreement. Mr Bush, Texan son of an oil-man, presided over a continuing slump in America’s petroleum production. Conversely, Mr Obama, as a Democrat traditionally viewed negatively by the oil business, saw US petroleum output on his watch rise to its highest level ever.

Mr Trump’s broad energy position is clear: hostile to most green energy, having blamed wind-farms for killing birds and whales, and causing cancer, he advocates “Drill, baby, drill”, a mantra well-received by oil capital Houston.

He would repeal the "kamikaze climate regulations" of the current administration of President Joe Biden, and probably again withdraw from the Paris Agreement of 2015. The election comes just before the Cop29 climate talks in Baku, which begin on November 11. But climate has not been a very prominent issue in either campaign, despite the devastating hurricane and floods that struck the eastern US in late September.

Kamala Harris has backed away from her position in the 2020 primaries of banning fracking, and now accepts this core technology for producing shale oil and gas. But she would continue and seek to expand the path of Mr Biden, encouraging the deployment of renewable energy, batteries, electric vehicles, and climate adaptation for less-favoured communities.

The ability of the next president to get things done also depends on the control of the legislature. It appears likely that should Mr Trump win, the Republicans would also control Congress. Conversely, Ms Harris would be more likely to confront a Republican-held Senate and perhaps House of Representatives, as well as an unfriendly Supreme Court liable to strike down “unconstitutional” initiatives.

On a few issues, the candidates are likely to coincide. Carbon capture and storage, “blue” hydrogen from natural gas, nuclear power and biofuels draw support from both political persuasions, for different reasons.

Both are rhetorically hostile to China, and likely to keep using tariffs to deter imports of Chinese-made low-carbon technologies such as solar panels.

And the massive investments spurred by Mr Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tend to favour Republican-voting states and districts. $206 billion of investment in clean-tech manufacturing, mostly electric vehicles and batteries, has been announced under Mr Biden. Of this, $42 billion has gone to districts represented by Democrats; $161 billion to those held by Republicans.

Many Republican members of Congress and governors opposed the IRA but then applaud when spending lands in their backyard. Electric vehicles are an interesting case: Mr Trump is sceptical, but Tesla magnate Elon Musk has emerged as one of his top funders and cheerleaders.

But these domestic policy issues fade into the background compared to five globe-spanning themes.

First is economics. A recession or financial crisis can strike regardless of the inhabitant of the White House, of course. The level of US oil and gas output won’t be determined by minor regulatory tweaks, however much Houston hates government meddling. It will be set, instead, by oil and gas prices, and by the appetite of US investors. Opening drilling areas in Alaska or delaying permits for more liquefied natural gas exports won’t matter much in face of a weak economy, a Chinese slump or a breakdown of Opec+ unity.

However, taken literally, Mr Trump’s plans for a 10 per cent tariff on all US imports, and 60 per cent on imports from China, would be disastrous for domestic inflation and world trade. The ramifications are huge, but would include a glut of low-carbon goods such as electric vehicles on other markets. US relations with Europe and Japan would come under great strain.

Second is geopolitics. There are three obvious flashpoints. China is the first, where growing economic hostility and the Beijing-Moscow axis might lead to worse confrontation, over Taiwan, Ukraine, the Middle East, or North Korea.

Mr Trump has promised to end the Ukraine war, probably on terms favourable to Moscow. That might ease sanctions on Russian oil and gas, even if Europe doesn’t go back to its excessive dependence. Conversely, Ms Harris would be tougher, maybe going beyond Mr Biden’s rather cautious policy.

In the Middle East, a dangerous vacuum between the election and the new president’s inauguration on 20 January could be filled by a worsening of the Israel-Iran hostilities. Energy markets remain blasé about escalation, yet without a firm hand in Washington, the region’s oil and gas industry remains a potential target.

Third is technology. In the space of a four-year term, a new technology will probably open possibilities rather than fully realising a transformation. The radiant implications of ultra-low cost solar power are still emerging. But novel batteries, nuclear fusion, the energy hunger of artificial intelligence, or some other breakthrough could shift perceptions – particularly if the invention comes from Shenzhen rather than Silicon Valley.

Fourth is climate. Memes of Mr Trump proclaim, “I am the storm”, but the power of hurricanes supercharged by warming seas is yet more terrifying. It may be impossible to ignore a world at boiling point.

And fifth, of course, the “events” of which British prime minister Harold Macmillan warned. Like the 9/11 attacks in 2001 or the pandemic in 2020, the biggest challenge to Ms Harris or Mr Trump, and to the energy industry, may come from an entirely unexpected direction.

Robin M. Mills is CEO of Qamar Energy, and author of The Myth of the Oil Crisis