The Democratic candidate is running a campaign that dodges all the touchy questions. Yet she has strong convictions.
The Democratic candidate for the American presidency, Kamala Harris, has so far remained very discreet about her intentions regarding climate policy. According to many media outlets, the vice president has limited herself to defending Joe Biden’s record, in particular his plan of massive investments in new green energies and innovation. But she remains vague about her concrete plans. She maintains a strategy of ambiguity, avoiding exposing herself to criticism from Donald Trump, who accuses her of wanting to destroy the American oil industry and of raising prices at the gas pump.
Donald Trump demonizes his rival as she tries to woo key swing-state voters, particularly in Pennsylvania, one of the largest producers of shale gas. During the televised debate on September 10, the former president recalled that Kamala Harris, then a candidate for the Democratic nomination, had declared herself in favor of banning hydraulic fracturing, the technology that revolutionized the production of gas and oil on American soil, allowing the United States to once again become the world’s leading oil power.
Officially, Kamala Harris defends President Joe Biden’s policy and no longer supports a ban on hydraulic fracturing. The vice president focuses her campaign on household budgets with the aim of increasing subsidies granted to the most vulnerable households to cover costs linked to the energy transition.
Harris’s reversal has not calmed the attacks from Donald Trump and the oil lobby. “From what we know of her past positions, bills she has sponsored and past statements, she has taken a fairly aggressively anti-energy and anti-oil and gas industry stance,” said Anne Bradbury, director of the American Exploration and Production Council, recently (quoted in the Financial Times).
Kamala Harris advances with Sioux-like caution. She has adopted this sad political motto: “To explain is to expose and to lose.” In plain terms, she sidesteps to avoid reigniting the Republicans’ demons. And she refrains from any promise or remark that environmentalists might interpret as a betrayal of their cause.
But make no mistake. Candidate Kamala Harris has solid convictions. She has long experience on environmental issues. As a former prosecutor, she led several actions against the oil and gas industry. According to an in-depth investigation by Inside Climate News, an investigative site specializing in climate issues, she achieved real results.
Thus, in 2014, she opposed Chevron’s refinery expansion project in Richmond, whose sulfur emissions exceeded the limits imposed by law. The oil giant had to scale back its project to comply with the guidelines of the California state administration. She who is often described as too discreet showed that she knew how to defend her convictions without compromising; her opposition to Chevron exposed her to criticism from unions and from some Democratic elected officials who defended the Chevron project in the name of the jobs it would create.
It remains on the international stage that Kamala Harris’s action could be decisive for the future of the planet and the climate. The vice president was Joe Biden’s envoy to developing countries. She defended the idea of a “Marshall Plan” intended to finance the ecological transition of these countries, while relocating part of the green industry in order to reduce global dependence on China, which aspires to dominate this strategic sector. While Donald Trump calls climate change a “hoax” and rejects any new initiative, Kamala Harris seems convinced that the effort must be both national and international.
It is, however, in her own country that the battle will be the most delicate and controversial. While the Biden plan has revived investments in green technologies thanks to substantial subsidies, it remains insufficient to reach the targets set by the White House: to reduce emissions by 50 to 52% by 2030. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the reduction might only reach 35 to 43%.
Sources close to Kamala Harris suggest that, if elected, she could propose more ambitious targets. She will nevertheless have to succeed where the Biden administration failed: prove that a climate policy can be effective without penalizing purchasing power when three quarters of Americans say in polls that they know nothing of the investments and stakes of the Biden plan.
Finally, any “green Marshall Plan” is incompatible with a protectionist and isolationist economic policy that seems to rally a large majority among Republicans and Democratic voters.
This column also appeared in the pages of 24 Heures and Tribune de Genève.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
"As alarmist rhetoric proliferates, they share the common theme of the threat of a loss of control over a strategic domain for Switzerland," warns Dominique Rochat, Energy & Infrastructure Project Manager at Economiesuisse.
"In the field of transport and energy, what opportunities do data really offer and what are their limits?" asks Matthias Finger, co-founder of Swiss Economics and professor emeritus at EPFL.