Another divergence in policy views from the US presidential candidates pertains to climate change. Republican candidate Donald Trump famously tweeted that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” He has since distanced himself from the tweet by saying he was merely joking at the time. However, going by his speeches and other tweets, it becomes apparent that Donald Trump remains skeptical of the ‘pseudoscience’ behind global warming and does not place climate mitigation high on his policy priority list.

Hillary Clinton maintains the opposite view. She has singled out climate change in her policy platform, pledging to create new jobs in green technology industries, increase the amount of US power generation done via renewables, and ‘lead the world in the fight against climate change by bringing greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below what they were in 2005 within the next decade – and keep going.’

These two views beg the question: What would the impact of a Trump or Clinton presidency be on US renewables and fossil fuel industries?  And would one or the other tip the balance of US engagement with international climate regimes?

Impact

A Clinton Qualifier

Donald Trump may espouse the extreme view of being a non-believer in man-made climate change, but Clinton might not necessarily represent the opposite end of the spectrum, that climate change is an existential threat that requires immediate and sustained government intervention in the workings of the free market. Put another way, there are question marks surrounding Clinton’s ability and/or willingness to regulate the fossil fuel industry given the major donations being funneled into her campaign. Greenpeace put the donations from fossil-fuel linked companies into the Clinton campaign and Super Pac at $4.5 million (and this only for the primaries). Clinton was also relatively kind to corporate energy interests during her tenure in the State Department, presiding over an environmental impact report that many argue downplays the climate effects of the would-be Keystone XL pipeline between Canada and the United States.