Welcome to Zero. I am Akshatrati. This week, the election everyone's talking about. I didn't become a journalist to try to predict what political leaders will do next, But when the climate stakes are as high as they are for the US presidential election in November, we have to understand what the world could look like depending on which way the voters swing. So far, this has been a ViBe's election. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are offering very different vibes on climate policy. But beyond the vibes, there are actual policies that they do have in mind, and those policies would lead to very different worlds. To better understand what kind of world we might be living in come January, it's worth grappling with the impacts of those policies. And there's no one better that I could discuss this than with my colleague Jen de Louis. She's Bloomberg's Energy and environment policy reporter based in DC, and she's always helped me make sense of the ins and outs and complexities of American politics. Jen, Welcome to the show.

Welcome to Zero. I am Akshatrati. This week, the election everyone's talking about. I didn't become a journalist to try to predict what political leaders will do next, But when the climate stakes are as high as they are for the US presidential election in November, we have to understand what the world could look like depending on which way the voters swing. So far, this has been a ViBe's election. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are offering very different vibes on climate policy. But beyond the vibes, there are actual policies that they do have in mind, and those policies would lead to very different worlds. To better understand what kind of world we might be living in come January, it's worth grappling with the impacts of those policies. And there's no one better that I could discuss this than with my colleague Jen de Louis. She's Bloomberg's Energy and environment policy reporter based in DC, and she's always helped me make sense of the ins and outs and complexities of American politics. Jen, Welcome to the show.

Thanks Axxan. I'm glad to be here.

Thanks Axxan. I'm glad to be here.

This presidential race did change dramatically two months ago when Joe Biden announced that he wasn't running for a second term, and then Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, it's a new race. Before that, Trump seemed to be in lead, and he did talk about what he wanted to do with climate policy. He wanted to overturn a lot of the measures and the Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden passed in twenty twenty two. So if Trump is elected, what do you think he could do to undo the IRA?

This presidential race did change dramatically two months ago when Joe Biden announced that he wasn't running for a second term, and then Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, it's a new race. Before that, Trump seemed to be in lead, and he did talk about what he wanted to do with climate policy. He wanted to overturn a lot of the measures and the Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden passed in twenty twenty two. So if Trump is elected, what do you think he could do to undo the IRA?

Quite a bit. Actually, he would need to work with Congress to achieve a real wholesale repealing of the IRA, and frankly that would require support from Republicans and Democrats that no one anticipates. He would have to really tear it out, root and limb. Right now, the likeliest scenario is that both chambers of Congress flip, so that means Democrats would win control of the House and Republicans would take over the Senate. And just as important as which party holds the gavel in each of those chambers is their margin of control. Under almost any scenario, the Senate appears likely to remain narrowly divided, and that will make it difficult for any future president to advance substantive legislation, but administratively, he can do things around the edges of the IRA to chip away at and limit its impact. So, for instance, the Treasury Department under Trump could write new guidelines for tax credits under the IRA, like those for electric vehicles, so they're harder to claim. He'd also have wide birth to make good on his threat to claw back unspent IRA money, especially in the form of grants and loans, you know, basically the cash that hasn't gone out the door. The Biden administration has been working really hard to get grants and loans awarded, but some of those can actually even be distributed till future years under the law, and it'd be really easy for President Trump to just hit the pause button on any spending that hasn't gone out the door under the IRA. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars still potentially in this category. So that's what he can do on the IRA. There's a lot he can also do to address and roll back climate regulations that have been put in place by Biden over the last four years.

Quite a bit. Actually, he would need to work with Congress to achieve a real wholesale repealing of the IRA, and frankly that would require support from Republicans and Democrats that no one anticipates. He would have to really tear it out, root and limb. Right now, the likeliest scenario is that both chambers of Congress flip, so that means Democrats would win control of the House and Republicans would take over the Senate. And just as important as which party holds the gavel in each of those chambers is their margin of control. Under almost any scenario, the Senate appears likely to remain narrowly divided, and that will make it difficult for any future president to advance substantive legislation, but administratively, he can do things around the edges of the IRA to chip away at and limit its impact. So, for instance, the Treasury Department under Trump could write new guidelines for tax credits under the IRA, like those for electric vehicles, so they're harder to claim. He'd also have wide birth to make good on his threat to claw back unspent IRA money, especially in the form of grants and loans, you know, basically the cash that hasn't gone out the door. The Biden administration has been working really hard to get grants and loans awarded, but some of those can actually even be distributed till future years under the law, and it'd be really easy for President Trump to just hit the pause button on any spending that hasn't gone out the door under the IRA. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars still potentially in this category. So that's what he can do on the IRA. There's a lot he can also do to address and roll back climate regulations that have been put in place by Biden over the last four years.

What kind of legislations are those right.

What kind of legislations are those right.

So we could see a replay of a lot of what Trump did his first term in office to undo Obama era climate regulations, except this time he would of course be attacking Biden era. It's a similar playbook to what he employed the first time around. It's just significantly amped up and likely benefiting from more experienced advisors in key roles, folks who've been around maybe helped them along the last time he was in office. Starting on day one, he's already said he intends to direct federal agencies to begin repealing and replacing climate regulations. Particularly two EPA rules are in the crosshairs. That includes measures that crack down on greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and power sectors. For the transportation sector, the big target is an EPA rule setting tailpipe pollution limits for cars and trucks. It's so strict that it compels automakers to sell a lot more electric and hybrid vehicles between twenty twenty seven and twenty thirty two. It's technically a tech neutral regulation, but Trump and other opponents derided as an evy mandate since automakers really can't comply just by selling conventional cars, they have to clean up their overall fleet of vehicles to hit these targets. And this is a really important rule. The transportation sector in the US is the largest source of the country's greenhouse gas emissions, about twenty eight percent of the total, and within that cars, pickups, and SUVs are responsible for about sixty percent, fifty eight to sixty percent of those. So this is really important for the US to hit its climate targets, this rule, and yet Trump has made you know, no bones about it. He's going to target this on day one and set that repeal in motion on day one. He's also repeatedly vowed to terminate the EPA's power plant rule. That's there's at least one regulation that's in the cross as here. It's an EPA rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions from the nation's current fleet of coal power plants, as well as many new gas plants. Trump used a similar strategy last time, so once again he's going back to He would be going back to that playbook from his first term in office, using a similar strategy to what he did to attack Obama's Clean Power Plan in the last term. He replaced that with a rule that required only modest emission productions at the nation's power plants really just you know, what could be achieved through simple improvements and efficiency. And here, if he were to wipe away the Biden rule, you could see a prolonging of the lifespan for American coal plants that otherwise would really have to shut down over the next decade. And it also could encourage the construction of new gas plants, something he's championed.

So we could see a replay of a lot of what Trump did his first term in office to undo Obama era climate regulations, except this time he would of course be attacking Biden era. It's a similar playbook to what he employed the first time around. It's just significantly amped up and likely benefiting from more experienced advisors in key roles, folks who've been around maybe helped them along the last time he was in office. Starting on day one, he's already said he intends to direct federal agencies to begin repealing and replacing climate regulations. Particularly two EPA rules are in the crosshairs. That includes measures that crack down on greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and power sectors. For the transportation sector, the big target is an EPA rule setting tailpipe pollution limits for cars and trucks. It's so strict that it compels automakers to sell a lot more electric and hybrid vehicles between twenty twenty seven and twenty thirty two. It's technically a tech neutral regulation, but Trump and other opponents derided as an evy mandate since automakers really can't comply just by selling conventional cars, they have to clean up their overall fleet of vehicles to hit these targets. And this is a really important rule. The transportation sector in the US is the largest source of the country's greenhouse gas emissions, about twenty eight percent of the total, and within that cars, pickups, and SUVs are responsible for about sixty percent, fifty eight to sixty percent of those. So this is really important for the US to hit its climate targets, this rule, and yet Trump has made you know, no bones about it. He's going to target this on day one and set that repeal in motion on day one. He's also repeatedly vowed to terminate the EPA's power plant rule. That's there's at least one regulation that's in the cross as here. It's an EPA rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions from the nation's current fleet of coal power plants, as well as many new gas plants. Trump used a similar strategy last time, so once again he's going back to He would be going back to that playbook from his first term in office, using a similar strategy to what he did to attack Obama's Clean Power Plan in the last term. He replaced that with a rule that required only modest emission productions at the nation's power plants really just you know, what could be achieved through simple improvements and efficiency. And here, if he were to wipe away the Biden rule, you could see a prolonging of the lifespan for American coal plants that otherwise would really have to shut down over the next decade. And it also could encourage the construction of new gas plants, something he's championed.

And on the EV side, there is Elon Musk who is now supporting Donald Trump, and some of it doesn't make sense right. Elon does want to sell more electric vehicles, but if Trump is going to attack this rule that will allow carmakers to sell more gascars, what is in it for Elon to support Trump.

And on the EV side, there is Elon Musk who is now supporting Donald Trump, and some of it doesn't make sense right. Elon does want to sell more electric vehicles, but if Trump is going to attack this rule that will allow carmakers to sell more gascars, what is in it for Elon to support Trump.

It's important to realize that Elon Musk has, of course a number of interests beyond just Tesla and EV's. But we've seen, you know, this friendship for alliance and financial support with Trump is obviously correlated with a shifting in the former president's rhetoric around EV's. Tesla has of course a huge first mover advantage in the US, and that means that it's really already benefited from years selling its cars with the benefit of the EV tax credit even before the IRA expanded it. So at this point, you know, while the EV tax credit undoubtedly helps encourage sales, it's arguably more important for Tesla's rivals, for the companies that haven't yet significantly penetrated the EV market in the US or found a loyal following. So I think, you know that's for Tesla supporters. You know, they can perhaps live without this credit in a way that other legacy automakers trying to make evs cannot.

It's important to realize that Elon Musk has, of course a number of interests beyond just Tesla and EV's. But we've seen, you know, this friendship for alliance and financial support with Trump is obviously correlated with a shifting in the former president's rhetoric around EV's. Tesla has of course a huge first mover advantage in the US, and that means that it's really already benefited from years selling its cars with the benefit of the EV tax credit even before the IRA expanded it. So at this point, you know, while the EV tax credit undoubtedly helps encourage sales, it's arguably more important for Tesla's rivals, for the companies that haven't yet significantly penetrated the EV market in the US or found a loyal following. So I think, you know that's for Tesla supporters. You know, they can perhaps live without this credit in a way that other legacy automakers trying to make evs cannot.

Now, what I didn't hear you say is Project twenty twenty five, because it seems like if you're reading any coverage of elections, project twenty twenty five comes up. Why is that? Why did you not refer to it?

Now, what I didn't hear you say is Project twenty twenty five, because it seems like if you're reading any coverage of elections, project twenty twenty five comes up. Why is that? Why did you not refer to it?

So Trump has of course disavowed the policy blueprint assembled by the Heritage Foundation and dozens of other conservative groups that we know as Project twenty twenty five. It's gotten a lot of attention during this campaign cycle. What's interesting to me, you know, covering energy and environment climate INBC for many, many years now, is that the blueprint that was advanced really included a lot of ideas that were either at least in the energy and environment space, that were either pursued during Trump's first term in office, or are like priorities that are long held by many conservatives in Congress and in Washington. So much of what I saw in the Blueprint when it was, you know, released quite a long time ago, is not actually surprising to find. It's a rehash of a lot of ideas that have been percolating and circulating in DC for a long time. So, for instance, you know, Project twenty twenty five proposed making more federal land available for oil and gas leasing and lowering kind of the costs and hurdles to development in that territory. Well, that's been an objective of both the oil industry and many many Republicans for years. You know, the Blueprint would also scale back the reach of the EPA. It would scale back energy efficiency requirements for household appliances. These are efforts that were both undertaken when Trump was last in the White House and that we would expect to see a repeat of if he were elected again, regardless of whether the Heritage Foundation or other conservative groups had advanced it in this formal agenda. So I think it's important to take Project twenty twenty five seriously. Of course, you know, This is a companium of ideas that are likely to find purchase in a future administration, even if the former president has disavowed their work product. But I also think it's important to realize that this is old had in some ways, these are ideas that have been around a long time in the energy environment space.

So Trump has of course disavowed the policy blueprint assembled by the Heritage Foundation and dozens of other conservative groups that we know as Project twenty twenty five. It's gotten a lot of attention during this campaign cycle. What's interesting to me, you know, covering energy and environment climate INBC for many, many years now, is that the blueprint that was advanced really included a lot of ideas that were either at least in the energy and environment space, that were either pursued during Trump's first term in office, or are like priorities that are long held by many conservatives in Congress and in Washington. So much of what I saw in the Blueprint when it was, you know, released quite a long time ago, is not actually surprising to find. It's a rehash of a lot of ideas that have been percolating and circulating in DC for a long time. So, for instance, you know, Project twenty twenty five proposed making more federal land available for oil and gas leasing and lowering kind of the costs and hurdles to development in that territory. Well, that's been an objective of both the oil industry and many many Republicans for years. You know, the Blueprint would also scale back the reach of the EPA. It would scale back energy efficiency requirements for household appliances. These are efforts that were both undertaken when Trump was last in the White House and that we would expect to see a repeat of if he were elected again, regardless of whether the Heritage Foundation or other conservative groups had advanced it in this formal agenda. So I think it's important to take Project twenty twenty five seriously. Of course, you know, This is a companium of ideas that are likely to find purchase in a future administration, even if the former president has disavowed their work product. But I also think it's important to realize that this is old had in some ways, these are ideas that have been around a long time in the energy environment space.

And talking of no surprises, we've talked about what domestic impact Trump could have, there's also some predictable international impact. The last time around President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, he said he'll do it again this time.

And talking of no surprises, we've talked about what domestic impact Trump could have, there's also some predictable international impact. The last time around President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, he said he'll do it again this time.

Right absolutely, you know, he has fully committed to once again exit what he calls kind of the horrendously unfair Paris Climate Accord. Only this time he could actually start the process his first day in office. Last time, Remember he had to deliberate over it. He actually didn't have his mind fully made up initially. And this time the US could actually be out of the deal just one year after he embarks on that process of exiting the accord, just because of the nature of the way it was written and bound to him the first four years.

Right absolutely, you know, he has fully committed to once again exit what he calls kind of the horrendously unfair Paris Climate Accord. Only this time he could actually start the process his first day in office. Last time, Remember he had to deliberate over it. He actually didn't have his mind fully made up initially. And this time the US could actually be out of the deal just one year after he embarks on that process of exiting the accord, just because of the nature of the way it was written and bound to him the first four years.

Well, as reporters, I think we should also fact check the horrendously unfair part by acknowledging that the US is the world's largest greenhouse gas eimeter cumulatively in history, and of course the second largest emeter on an annual basis still today. And what is definitely horrenfteously unfair is that climate impact does affect the poorest around the world.

Well, as reporters, I think we should also fact check the horrendously unfair part by acknowledging that the US is the world's largest greenhouse gas eimeter cumulatively in history, and of course the second largest emeter on an annual basis still today. And what is definitely horrenfteously unfair is that climate impact does affect the poorest around the world.

Right and Trump could actually go further and abandoned the UNF Triple C, the Framework Convention on Climate Change that underpins it. And if leaving Paris is a potentially temporary blow to climate plumacy, then leaving the UNF Triple C would be a figurative bomb and climate diplomacy with years of fallout. And what's interesting about this is truly the potentially long repercussions for the US and for the world. The UNF Triple C is a treaty. It was ratified by the US Senate in nineteen ninety two, and if Trump removes US support, it could require another two thirds vote by the US Senate to get the country back in, and it really could take years to muster the potentially required support to get the US back in, even if you had a supportive president in the White House.

Right and Trump could actually go further and abandoned the UNF Triple C, the Framework Convention on Climate Change that underpins it. And if leaving Paris is a potentially temporary blow to climate plumacy, then leaving the UNF Triple C would be a figurative bomb and climate diplomacy with years of fallout. And what's interesting about this is truly the potentially long repercussions for the US and for the world. The UNF Triple C is a treaty. It was ratified by the US Senate in nineteen ninety two, and if Trump removes US support, it could require another two thirds vote by the US Senate to get the country back in, and it really could take years to muster the potentially required support to get the US back in, even if you had a supportive president in the White House.

So far, we've talked a lot about what could go wrong on climate policy if President Trump is re elected. After the break, we'll look at what kind of climate policy i Kamala harris presidency might bring. By the way, if you're enjoying this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. It helps other listeners find the show. Jen I mentioned this being a wives election, and reporters have criticized Harris for not being detailed enough in her policy proposals on climate. In particular, we know that she previously backed the Green New Deal when she was running as a presidential candidate back in the twenty twenty elections. At that time, she opposed fracking, but now she's changed tone. What else do we know about her thinking on climate today and the kinds of policies that she might be spearheading if she's elected.

So far, we've talked a lot about what could go wrong on climate policy if President Trump is re elected. After the break, we'll look at what kind of climate policy i Kamala harris presidency might bring. By the way, if you're enjoying this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. It helps other listeners find the show. Jen I mentioned this being a wives election, and reporters have criticized Harris for not being detailed enough in her policy proposals on climate. In particular, we know that she previously backed the Green New Deal when she was running as a presidential candidate back in the twenty twenty elections. At that time, she opposed fracking, but now she's changed tone. What else do we know about her thinking on climate today and the kinds of policies that she might be spearheading if she's elected.

Well, I'd say, frustratingly, we don't know enough. I'm a reporter who craves a lot more detailed than we're seeing from the campaign. It is important to appreciate that Harris was essentially thrust into the middle of a general election campaign where she is quartering all voters. In a primary, we typically would see candidates tacked to the outer ends of their party. A Democrat would typically embrace more progressive policies and more climate forward agenda. And the general election, you know, it's seemingly working well for Harris to avoid talking about details that potentially could alienate more moderate voters who aren't necessarily keen on a lot of aggressive climate action. But campaigning is not governing, and Harris really can do a lot administratively, and we would expect her to really continue building on Biden's climate legacy, building on the Inflation Reduction Act, even administratively. So you know, a top priority is a rather mundane sounding one. It's really continuing to implement the Inflation Reduction Act. You know, there's a bit of a temptation, I think by folks who work in the space to believe that, you know, two years after the law's enactment, it's all finished ground. You know, we can move on to the next step and addressing and improving US climate policy. But there's still tremendous work to get the i RaSE program running, to get dollars flowing. The Treasury Department in the US still hasn't finished writing rules for how people can claim tax credits under the law, including those governing hydrogen production and clean electricity. So there's just a lot of administrative work to be done to kind of unstick this process to accelerate deployment. I talk with manufacturers and renewable power developers all the time who say they need the government to do more to accelerate deployment, to get these tax credits flowing, and frankly, to deal with funding and permitting bottlenecks. So that's another really important thing that folks are expecting Harris to work on if she's elected and it's not resolved by Congress later this year, Really tackling the permitting challenge that is holding back, you know, renewables as well as traditional fossil fuel projects. They're just mounting concerns about the hurdles to getting projects permitted and connected to the grid. And you know, while big permitting reform really does require action from Congress and Harris may or may not have that kind of supportive environment on Capitol Hill, there is administrative work she could do to accelerate transmission upgrades and get deployment moving faster.

Well, I'd say, frustratingly, we don't know enough. I'm a reporter who craves a lot more detailed than we're seeing from the campaign. It is important to appreciate that Harris was essentially thrust into the middle of a general election campaign where she is quartering all voters. In a primary, we typically would see candidates tacked to the outer ends of their party. A Democrat would typically embrace more progressive policies and more climate forward agenda. And the general election, you know, it's seemingly working well for Harris to avoid talking about details that potentially could alienate more moderate voters who aren't necessarily keen on a lot of aggressive climate action. But campaigning is not governing, and Harris really can do a lot administratively, and we would expect her to really continue building on Biden's climate legacy, building on the Inflation Reduction Act, even administratively. So you know, a top priority is a rather mundane sounding one. It's really continuing to implement the Inflation Reduction Act. You know, there's a bit of a temptation, I think by folks who work in the space to believe that, you know, two years after the law's enactment, it's all finished ground. You know, we can move on to the next step and addressing and improving US climate policy. But there's still tremendous work to get the i RaSE program running, to get dollars flowing. The Treasury Department in the US still hasn't finished writing rules for how people can claim tax credits under the law, including those governing hydrogen production and clean electricity. So there's just a lot of administrative work to be done to kind of unstick this process to accelerate deployment. I talk with manufacturers and renewable power developers all the time who say they need the government to do more to accelerate deployment, to get these tax credits flowing, and frankly, to deal with funding and permitting bottlenecks. So that's another really important thing that folks are expecting Harris to work on if she's elected and it's not resolved by Congress later this year, Really tackling the permitting challenge that is holding back, you know, renewables as well as traditional fossil fuel projects. They're just mounting concerns about the hurdles to getting projects permitted and connected to the grid. And you know, while big permitting reform really does require action from Congress and Harris may or may not have that kind of supportive environment on Capitol Hill, there is administrative work she could do to accelerate transmission upgrades and get deployment moving faster.

With Trump's policy, we talked about how ruling back tailpipe emissions could really have an impact on transport emissions, which is the largest portion of US emissions, but of course that's still only twenty eight percent. Is all this other stuff that also needs to be decobonized.

With Trump's policy, we talked about how ruling back tailpipe emissions could really have an impact on transport emissions, which is the largest portion of US emissions, but of course that's still only twenty eight percent. Is all this other stuff that also needs to be decobonized.

Right exactly, And we expect a Harris administration would move to impose new rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from more sources. That includes existing natural gas plants that are going to be asked to produce power longer and harder for meeting the demand that's coming from AI and fecturing. It also includes industrial facilities like steel mills and cement plants, which right now produce about a quarter of US greenhouse gas emissions, So we could expect EPA rules confronting both of those facilities.

Right exactly, And we expect a Harris administration would move to impose new rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from more sources. That includes existing natural gas plants that are going to be asked to produce power longer and harder for meeting the demand that's coming from AI and fecturing. It also includes industrial facilities like steel mills and cement plants, which right now produce about a quarter of US greenhouse gas emissions, So we could expect EPA rules confronting both of those facilities.

One thing that climate reporters notice at the Democratic Convention is how little Kamala Harris talked about climate She didn't really highlight the green achievements made by President Biden's administration, and climate change only got a passing mention anyway. Then later during the debate between President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, we heard her talk about the surge in USR production and a need to reduce American reliance on foreign oil. So so far she said little on climate policy directly to reporters, But what she is saying on the public stage, what do you make of it?

One thing that climate reporters notice at the Democratic Convention is how little Kamala Harris talked about climate She didn't really highlight the green achievements made by President Biden's administration, and climate change only got a passing mention anyway. Then later during the debate between President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, we heard her talk about the surge in USR production and a need to reduce American reliance on foreign oil. So so far she said little on climate policy directly to reporters, But what she is saying on the public stage, what do you make of it?

I make of it that she feels like she really needs to win Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a politically important state with a lot of votes in the electoral college, which is what really wins the presidency in the US. It also happens to be a top natural gas producer, and so she's trying very hard in this general election clearly to thread the needle to you know, support broadly action on clean energy that will create jobs for Americans, but also throw a bone to supporters of fossil fuels and say I'm not going to abandon oil and gas if elected. I'm not going to try to ban cracking, a position I held back in twenty nineteen. It's really, you know, a bid to court moderate voters, especially in Pennsylvania, which is just such an important swing state for her to win.

I make of it that she feels like she really needs to win Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a politically important state with a lot of votes in the electoral college, which is what really wins the presidency in the US. It also happens to be a top natural gas producer, and so she's trying very hard in this general election clearly to thread the needle to you know, support broadly action on clean energy that will create jobs for Americans, but also throw a bone to supporters of fossil fuels and say I'm not going to abandon oil and gas if elected. I'm not going to try to ban cracking, a position I held back in twenty nineteen. It's really, you know, a bid to court moderate voters, especially in Pennsylvania, which is just such an important swing state for her to win.

But another way to think about what's happening with the climate conversation in twenty twenty four is, to me, it feels like is going back to normal because US presidential candidates in general don't talk about climate that much, if anything, that twenty twenty election was an anomaly where because of the progressive ing of the Democratic Party, you know, Joe Biden was made to talk about climate and then deliver on climate police. See, do you think that's right, that twenty twenty was the aberration and we're just back to normal now, even as we should note the planet is warming and Foster.

But another way to think about what's happening with the climate conversation in twenty twenty four is, to me, it feels like is going back to normal because US presidential candidates in general don't talk about climate that much, if anything, that twenty twenty election was an anomaly where because of the progressive ing of the Democratic Party, you know, Joe Biden was made to talk about climate and then deliver on climate police. See, do you think that's right, that twenty twenty was the aberration and we're just back to normal now, even as we should note the planet is warming and Foster.

I tend to think twenty twenty is going to be more the normal state of affairs. And what we're seeing now is the exception just because of this unusual presidential election that you know, basically saw the introduction of a Democratic nominee into a general election contest. You know, we've moved right into a space where talking about climate can seem polarizing to a certain segment of US voters. And so you have Trump using it to bash the Harris administration, talking about what he calls the green new scam, and you have Harris tiptoeing around all of this stuff. You know, my sense is that the urgency of the climate crisis is going to make the twenty twenty four cycle and the way it addressed climate change more of an anomaly. You know, we would expect Harris Worshi in a primary contest to be talking a lot more about all of this.

I tend to think twenty twenty is going to be more the normal state of affairs. And what we're seeing now is the exception just because of this unusual presidential election that you know, basically saw the introduction of a Democratic nominee into a general election contest. You know, we've moved right into a space where talking about climate can seem polarizing to a certain segment of US voters. And so you have Trump using it to bash the Harris administration, talking about what he calls the green new scam, and you have Harris tiptoeing around all of this stuff. You know, my sense is that the urgency of the climate crisis is going to make the twenty twenty four cycle and the way it addressed climate change more of an anomaly. You know, we would expect Harris Worshi in a primary contest to be talking a lot more about all of this.

Well, I did not think we'll come to a hopeful note towards the end of a conversation about US climate policy. But way to get us here, Jen, Now, clearly one of the candidates doesn't see much benefit talking about climate policy. You and I do, and I've told you this before, but it is an ongoing source of irritation to me that the US, with all its political power, its intellectual heft, it's huge amount of capital, doesn't do more on climate. So if you will for a moment, imagine with me what the US could do with the president who prioritized climate. We saw some of that under a President Biden, but there's so much more. What do you think the best case scenario could look like.

Well, I did not think we'll come to a hopeful note towards the end of a conversation about US climate policy. But way to get us here, Jen, Now, clearly one of the candidates doesn't see much benefit talking about climate policy. You and I do, and I've told you this before, but it is an ongoing source of irritation to me that the US, with all its political power, its intellectual heft, it's huge amount of capital, doesn't do more on climate. So if you will for a moment, imagine with me what the US could do with the president who prioritized climate. We saw some of that under a President Biden, but there's so much more. What do you think the best case scenario could look like.

Let's assume in this world that Kamala Harris is elected and she also is working with a Democratic majority in control of the House and the Senate. In the Senate majority Leader Chuck Shumer already committed to taking another bite at the climate apple. So we could see some kind of IRA two point zero that could take the form of another attempt at something that the Biden administration toyed with and couldn't get across the finish line in the IRA A clean Electricity performance program. That initiative basically would involve government grants that are awarded to electric utilities as long as they're hitting annual clean electricity targets, as long as they're cleaning up the emissions from their power generation. And conversely, you know, laggard utilities that aren't hitting their marks would have to pay fees to the federal government. You know, critics label taxes on fostle fuel generation. Again, this idea was popular among many climate activists, you know, three years ago, but it just was a little too polarizing to make it into the final IRA deal. But maybe it could be revived in a world where Democrats have you know, all three centers of power in Washington. We also would expect to see really aggressive action potentially in this world on baking carbon intensity into trade policy. You know. One of the things that has gotten a lot of tongues wagging in DC recently is an opinion piece that was put forward by Brian Deese. He was an economic advisor to both Biden and Obama. He's now actually advising the Harris campaign, and he basically outlined an ambitious vision for a new Marshall Plan for clean energy that would basically use US financing to encourage other countries to deploy clean energy, and the hook is they'd be using clean tech produced in the US. Now, this is a big, a bold, a pricey plan. It's one that really would require support from Congress to be fully realized. And so you know, that's kind of in that category of dream big. Caveat is that even if you're not dreaming big, even if Harris were elected but was working with a Republican Congress administratively, we can anticipate a little bit more work to bake carbon intensity into trade policy just by virtue of the fact that the EU is already leading us there.

Let's assume in this world that Kamala Harris is elected and she also is working with a Democratic majority in control of the House and the Senate. In the Senate majority Leader Chuck Shumer already committed to taking another bite at the climate apple. So we could see some kind of IRA two point zero that could take the form of another attempt at something that the Biden administration toyed with and couldn't get across the finish line in the IRA A clean Electricity performance program. That initiative basically would involve government grants that are awarded to electric utilities as long as they're hitting annual clean electricity targets, as long as they're cleaning up the emissions from their power generation. And conversely, you know, laggard utilities that aren't hitting their marks would have to pay fees to the federal government. You know, critics label taxes on fostle fuel generation. Again, this idea was popular among many climate activists, you know, three years ago, but it just was a little too polarizing to make it into the final IRA deal. But maybe it could be revived in a world where Democrats have you know, all three centers of power in Washington. We also would expect to see really aggressive action potentially in this world on baking carbon intensity into trade policy. You know. One of the things that has gotten a lot of tongues wagging in DC recently is an opinion piece that was put forward by Brian Deese. He was an economic advisor to both Biden and Obama. He's now actually advising the Harris campaign, and he basically outlined an ambitious vision for a new Marshall Plan for clean energy that would basically use US financing to encourage other countries to deploy clean energy, and the hook is they'd be using clean tech produced in the US. Now, this is a big, a bold, a pricey plan. It's one that really would require support from Congress to be fully realized. And so you know, that's kind of in that category of dream big. Caveat is that even if you're not dreaming big, even if Harris were elected but was working with a Republican Congress administratively, we can anticipate a little bit more work to bake carbon intensity into trade policy just by virtue of the fact that the EU is already leading us there.

Well, that is dreaming big, because right now the US does not make very much your solar panels, batteries, winterbines, or the kinds of stuff that we really want to deploy. But as you said, the US has to start to dream big. Thank you, Jennifer, helping us make sense of this. We will talk a lot more about US climate policy over the next couple of months, and of course I am looking forward to seeing you at COP twenty nine in baku in azerbai Chan. Thanks ash that, thank you for listening to Zero. And now for the sound of the week. Rare. You know the thing makes to this so and of course it's like a graveyard former US President Donald Trump making the sound of a win turbine. If you have better sounds of winterbines, please do send it to Zero pod at Bloomberg dot net. If you liked this episode, please take a moment to rate or review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, Share this episode with a friend or within un decided US voter. Zero's producer is Mighty le Raul. Bloomberg's head of podcast is Saige Bauman, and head of Talk is Brendan Nunan. Our theme music is composed by Wondering Special thanks to Kira Bendram and Matthew Griffin. I am Akshatrati bag Su

Well, that is dreaming big, because right now the US does not make very much your solar panels, batteries, winterbines, or the kinds of stuff that we really want to deploy. But as you said, the US has to start to dream big. Thank you, Jennifer, helping us make sense of this. We will talk a lot more about US climate policy over the next couple of months, and of course I am looking forward to seeing you at COP twenty nine in baku in azerbai Chan. Thanks ash that, thank you for listening to Zero. And now for the sound of the week. Rare. You know the thing makes to this so and of course it's like a graveyard former US President Donald Trump making the sound of a win turbine. If you have better sounds of winterbines, please do send it to Zero pod at Bloomberg dot net. If you liked this episode, please take a moment to rate or review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, Share this episode with a friend or within un decided US voter. Zero's producer is Mighty le Raul. Bloomberg's head of podcast is Saige Bauman, and head of Talk is Brendan Nunan. Our theme music is composed by Wondering Special thanks to Kira Bendram and Matthew Griffin. I am Akshatrati bag Su