A Trump Presidency Could Mean 3.4 Billion Tons More U.S. Carbon Emissions than a Clinton One

(This story was written and published before Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election, but the damning evidence directed at Trump remains unchanged).

U.S. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have very different outlooks on the country’s energy future.

As the world looks to reduce carbon emissions following the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, Clinton’s plans would keep the U.S. emissions on their current downward trajectory, while Trump’s would send them rising again, according to Lux Research. All told, estimated emissions would be 16% higher after two terms of Trump’s policies than they would be after two terms of Clinton’s, amounting to 3.4 billion tons greater emissions over the next eight years.

Clinton has set forth an ambitious goal of deploying enough solar capacity to power every home in the U.S. and would use natural gas as a “bridge” in a transition from fossil fuels to renewables. On the other hand, Trump’s vision includes greater production of fossil fuels and criticizes incentives for renewables. Clinton intends to follow current President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing emissions by up to 30% by 2025, while and Trump will seek to cancel Obama’s  and withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Read the Lux Research story - “A Trump Presidency Could Mean 3.4 Billion Tons More U.S. Carbon Emissions than a Clinton One.”