Hot N’ Cold: American Climate Change Policy

To most, winter conjures a strong image—one of heavy snowstorms and numerous canceled school days. Yet, as the colder months arrive, each winter seems to fall short of the previous ones. Warm temperatures linger for slightly too long, and snowstorms from our youth dissipate into irregularities. This is because New York continues to experience reduced snowfall, rising winter temperatures, and earlier snowmelt. These symptoms are indicative of a problem that continues to plague the minds of many Americans today: climate change. With the upcoming election, it is essential to get an idea of the candidates’ stances on various climate policies. 

Climate change was a main concern for many voters in the 2016 Presidential Election. The Green Party, officially formed in 2001, is a coalition of politicians who focus on progressive ideals—the most well-known being environmentalism. Jill Stein, a representative of the Green Party, gained considerable support in crucial battleground states during the 2016 election as a presidential candidate. She gained over 50,000 votes in Michigan, more than 31,000 in Wisconsin, and around 49,000 in Pennsylvania. The heightened support for Jill Stein was so significant that, if those voters had instead voted for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton would’ve won the presidency instead of Donald Trump. 

During the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, fracking in Pennsylvania was mentioned frequently, with both sides supporting the continued production of crude oil in America. Fracking is the short term for hydraulic fracturing—a method of extracting natural gas and oil from rock formations called shale, which is a sedimentary rock that contains fine grains of silt that can hold oil and natural gas within its pores. Drilling machines inject water, sand, and other chemicals at a high pressure into cracks in the rock, resulting in access to oil and gas deep underground. In 1862, Colonel Edward A. L. Roberts devised the primitive method of fracking as a way of extracting oil using explosives. By the 21st century, key advancements in technology—such as the creation of fracturing fluid and the technique of horizontal drilling—made fracking significantly more pervasive. However, fracking is extremely detrimental to our environment. It contributes substantially to water depletion, water contamination, air pollution, and earthquakes. Byproducts of fracking include a polluted fluid released from the shale rock as well as greenhouse gasses such as methane trapped in the ground. The contaminated fluid used for fracking and the released fluid can poison groundwater and threaten wildlife. Fluid is forced into the ground and raises pressure on tectonic faults, and this increases the chance of earthquakes. Not only does this practice affect nature, but it also affects our health. Two studies conducted in Pennsylvania found a strong connection between proximity to fracking and asthma attacks, low birth weights, and lymphoma. Those in favor of fracking point out the lowered oil and gas prices and the growth of the job market, but this disregards its implications on our health, the environment, and our water sources. 

In the United States, top contributors to fracking include Texas, Colorado, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. Despite the escalating consequences of fracking and the mounting evidence of health issues and environmental problems, regulation in the field is severely lacking. The Safe Water Drinking Water Act (SWDA) ensures the protection of water sources for drinking use and maintains the water quality standards; this includes minimizing damage to underground water sources. However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted fracking from regulation under the SWDA. Oil and gas exploration are excused from multiple other laws including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. In 2015, the Obama administration attempted to reduce water contamination from fracking by implementing responsible waste management practices and supervising well construction. However, due to legal challenges, it was never fully implemented. Republicans in Congress aimed to pass legislation pushing back against the rules, and many states felt that fracking should be handled at the state level. In 2017, the Trump administration completely repealed these fracking regulations. 

This election’s candidates have had contentious statements towards each other in relation to fracking. While Harris stated in 2019 that she was “in favor of banning fracking,” she is now against this and believes that a clean energy economy is possible without a ban. She amended her statement and concluded that banning fracking will increase natural gas prices and have massively negative consequences on the economy and employment rates. Her current environmental goal is to “invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.” In 2022, she cast the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) which provided hundreds of billions of dollars to clean-energy technology but also opened up new fracking leases. Yet, despite Harris’s continued support for fracking and the IRA, the Trump campaign insists that she still carries her earlier views against fracking. These comments have created a feud and impacted the two candidates’ fight for the swing state of Pennsylvania. Trump has accused the Biden administration’s energy policy of increasing inflation and, regarding Harris’s position, stated that “she’s totally anti-fracking. She’s been anti-fracking and anti-drilling and anti-oil and gas practically since the day she was born.” Trump’s stance is that fracking is essential for the economy, and he plans to promote deregulation and expand the oil and gas drilling activities. Without regard to the environment or any plans for clean energy, he wants to increase fracking leases on federal lands. Even worse, he plans to reverse sections of the IRA—specifically those involved in tax credits, which reduce energy costs. He has made it clear that he supports increased use of fossil fuels, regulatory repeals, and reduced clean energy policies—all of which will have catastrophic effects on the environment. While both Harris and Trump are in favor of fracking, it is evident that Harris has put more thought into its effects and has taken measures to promote clean energy. 

Another crucial element of the candidates’ climate change stances is investment into different sources of energy. One concern about using fossil fuels—geologically formed substances—to produce energy is the emission of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Upon entering the atmosphere, greenhouse gasses stop heat from escaping upward, trapping it in the lower atmosphere. While this mechanism naturally keeps our climate habitable, the recent increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to fossil fuel use has resulted in a harmful rise in temperature. 

Another pollutant released by fossil fuels is particulate matter. When less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, particulate matter is extremely harmful to inhale because it lands on deep lung surfaces. This contact can cause severe tissue damage, lung inflammation, and death. In fact, climate researchers estimate that one in five people, globally, experience premature death due to fossil fuel related particulate pollutants.  

One strategy to lessen the impact of these harmful emissions is the adoption of renewable energy, which is fueled by natural processes that continually replenish. One source of renewable energy is solar power, which is mostly collected by photovoltaic (PV) cells. PV cells consist of layers of silicon and are freed of electrons when hit by sunlight. The current of mobile electrons, known as electricity, is then routed through the wiring to be converted into a usable current. Alongside solar power, other renewable energy sources include wind energy from turbines, hydroelectric power from fast-moving water, geothermal energy using thermal hotspots, and nuclear energy using radioactive materials. 

The conflicting views on climate change are extremely apparent during this year’s election. One of the Biden administration’s primary goals is to reach net-zero emissions by 2050—a sentiment echoed by presidential candidate Harris. This entails shifting significantly towards renewable sources of energy and lowering dependence on fossil fuels. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency, under the Biden administration, finalized new standards for passenger vehicles that could result in over half of new cars being hybrid or electric by 2030. In contrast, Trump advocates for the continued use of fossil fuels in conjunction with decreased renewable energy policies. He believes that these efforts will create cheaper energy at higher quantities, allowing America to rely on internal energy production instead of external sources and soon achieve worldwide “energy dominance.” 

In the wake of Hurricane Milton’s and Hurricane Helene’s destruction in Florida, climate change is now a more pressing issue than ever. Rapid heating of the Earth has exacerbated natural disasters, making droughts last longer and hurricanes even more destructive. Hurricanes are typically formed by a tropical wave—a low-pressure region in the atmosphere where air moves from the east to the west. These “waves” cause warm air and water vapor to float to the top of the atmosphere. Then, water vapor and warm air rapidly cool and condense, transferring heat energy from water particles to fuel the hurricane. Thus, when globally increasing temperatures make oceans warmer, hurricanes like Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene— formed from the Gulf of Mexico and the Carribeans, respectively—are easily able to reach unprecedented levels of ferocity. 

In the last two decades, millions of Americans have moved away from northern states to high-risk areas like Tampa in Florida, Palm Springs in California, and more. The Biden Administration has increased funding in the CHIPS and Science Act, and Kamala Harris has said that she “remain[s] optimistic because of what we’ve been able to do—that [she] really do[es] believe is transformational.” She has also proposed one billion dollars in grants to combat flooding and drought in various states, but recent natural disasters—which have caused billions of dollars in damages and over 300 lives lost—have shown that her plan wouldn’t be enough. Both candidates need to focus more on alleviating the negative effects that climate change is already having on our nation and initiating policies with increased funding to stop the actual causes of climate change. Our country's dependence on nonrenewable energy, economic stagnation in more sustainable industries like electrical vehicles, and more can’t be changed overnight but rather throughout the course of several presidential terms. Both the Democratic and Republican parties—not just the candidates in this election—have to work together to address these issues, starting today.