(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.”
