The November presidential election is pivotal, environmental advocates say: Americans are deciding between Vice President Kamala Harris, who has a track record in climate action, and Donald Trump, who continuously denies that climate change exists.

Climate change should be top of mind when it comes to deciding who America’s next president will be, environmental experts in New York warn.

“We are seeing more and more of these extreme weather events. Climate is clearly on the ballot whether people think of it that way or not,” said Daniel Zarrilli, former chief climate policy advisor at the New York City Mayor’s Office.

The U.S, which saw a hurricane devastate Florida last week, is already facing $150 billion in annual damages from extreme weather events and will only endure harsher storms thanks to global warming. Across the globe, nations and cities have set targets to cut back on burning fossil fuels as they emit the greenhouse gasses driving climate change.

“A lack of American leadership at this moment would be pretty much catastrophic for a lot of these global goals and a lot of that hinges on this election,” Zarrilli added.

The November presidential election is pivotal, Zarrilli argues, because Americans are deciding between Vice President Kamala Harris, who has a track record in climate action, and Donald Trump, who continuously denies that climate change exists.

The Biden and Harris administration set a nationwide goal to slash planet-warming emissions in half by 2050. They also enacted the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which injected billions into tackling global warming and bolstering the green economy in a move Harris has called the “largest investment ever, to take on the climate crisis.”  

Meanwhile, Trump rolled back over 100 policies geared at lowering greenhouse gasses while he was in office and vowed to rescind any unspent dollars the IRA distributes for clean energy projects if he were to return to the White House. 

Experts say a pause in funding is just the tip of the iceberg. The Trump administration could deny the federal permits that New York’s offshore wind farms need to operate in national waters and generate green power. These setbacks could endanger the state’s plans to nearly phase out fossil fuels by 2050, as outlined by New York’s landmark climate law, the Climate Leadership and Protection Act (CLCPA).

On the flipside, Harris would likely continue to work towards moving away from fossil fuels, although details of her environmental platform are yet to be unveiled. 

Still, there is fear that a Harris win could lead to conservative groups pushing back against climate policies and that without Trump’s antagonism creating a sense of urgency, New York lawmakers might relax when meeting the state’s climate goals. 

But Zarrilli notes that as the climate crisis worsens, the urgency to act will be there regardless, and says putting Trump in the White House would be far more destructive.

“The risk is an entire rollback of clean energy investments and an increase in support for the fossil fuel industry through subsidies and other means that would just take us in the wrong direction,” Zarrilli said.

The Trump effect

Energy experts say a Trump win would bring two main repercussions for New York: IRA funding could suffer a blow, and permits needed to build out offshore wind projects could get denied. 

When it comes to the IRA, experts say Biden has been preparing for a potential Trump win by distributing as much of the funding as he can before his term comes to an end.

The funds help people switch from fossil-fuel powered equipment to clean electric energy in their homes through rebates, tax credits and financing programs. 

“A lot of money has gone out already, but most of it has not. Rolling back [IRA funds] would harm every community, frankly, but especially New York, where we need these kinds of incentives to build clean energy projects,” said Matthew Salton, the federal policy manager at New York League of Conservation Voters (NYLCV). 

New York has secured $1.6 billion in IRA grant money so far, which has helped pay for 199 clean energy and environmental projects across the state, according to the NYLCV. Large scale renewable energy initiatives that lower greenhouse emissions, like solar and wind farms, also need “a certain degree of federal funding,” Salton warns. 

He fears that without federal financial backing, these initiatives could be in jeopardy. 

Permits from a series of federal agencies are also needed to send giant windmills into national waters, capture the wind and turn it into energy for New York. And the Trump administration could choose not to issue them.

There are currently five offshore wind projects at different stages of development in New York, and only one is operational so far. Attempts to harness the wind for power have also sprouted across the U.S., as the Biden-Harris administration set a nation-wide goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy capacity by 2030.

But with Trump back in office, experts warn that the goal will likely be abandoned.

The former president has a long history of hostility towards the offshore wind industry. Over a decade ago he began complaining that wind turbines ruined the view from his golf course in Scotland, and has since falsely said that they ruin the environment and kill whales. 

“I hate wind,” he reportedly told a crowd of oil and gas executives at a fundraising dinner this spring. At the event, he painted the renewable energy source as bad, and asked for $1 billion in donations in exchange for nixing several environmental regulations once elected. Offshore wind development, he has noted several times, would be one of them.

“I’m going to write it out in an executive order. It’s going to end on day one,” the Republican presidential candidate said at a rally in New Jersey earlier this year. 

The Harris backlash?

While a Trump win could set back several clean energy goals, the expectation is that Democratic candidate Harris will further the Biden administration’s efforts to transition away from fossil fuels.

Timothy Fox, an energy policy analyst and managing director at the consulting firm Clear View Energy, says the move is bound to inspire conservative groups to “try to undermine federal policies that are pursuing the transition.”

That could include challenges to national policies in court or introducing legislation to slow the growth of the clean energy economy. 

And a Harris win could bring another unexpected side effect. 

“There may be less urgency among progressive-leaning states to create policies that further encourage the transition, when there’s a federal administration in office that is sympathetic [to getting off fossil fuels],” Fox told City Limits.

Zarrilli disagrees, arguing that there is more pressure than ever to deliver a clean energy transition, especially as the state is already behind in meeting the goals set forth by the landmark CLCPA climate law.

“The urgency will be there because the activist community and others are going to be looking for an expansion of the work the Inflation Reduction Act started,” Zarrilli said. “I think the urgency or the expectations will be higher starting next year.”

Whether a Harris presidency will lead to a lack of urgency or not, one thing is certain: if Trump makes it back to the White House, New York’s environmental community says it will double down in its fight.

“A Trump presidency will galvanize state efforts to fight climate change,” said Stephan Edel, the executive director of the environmental justice coalition NY Renews. 

“When Trump was elected for his first term there was a real motivation at the grassroots level and at the government level to fight back,” Edel said. “[If he returns], we could see a real emboldening of New York State and a recognition that New York is just going to have to get things done now.”

To reach the reporter behind this story, contact Mariana@citylimits.org. To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.