riskthinking.AI’s Post

At first glance, Oklahoma may not seem like a critical state to analyze when considering elections and climate risk. However, Riskthinking.AI's forward-looking climate risk modelling tells a different story. In fact, a Harris win scenario offers a notably more favourable climate risk outlook for Oklahoma compared to a Trump win, primarily due to the emissions reductions linked to climate-focused policies. Our data shows that under a Trump victory, Oklahoma's potential climate-related losses—in all risk categories—would rise compared to a Harris win. For instance, wildfire risk, as indicated by the Fire Weather Index, is projected to be 26% higher under Trump's policy direction. This is particularly concerning for Oklahoma, a state increasingly vulnerable to extreme heat, drought, and other climate-related hazards. While emissions policies are often evaluated from an economic perspective, they significantly affect physical climate risks. In Oklahoma, our models reveal that proactive emissions policies play a crucial role in reducing the state's exposure to climate hazards, illustrating the tangible benefits of policies that limit carbon emissions. This state-specific analysis highlights the substantial influence that federal policy can have on regional climate risks. Oklahoma serves as a clear example of the stark contrast between the outcomes of a Trump and a Harris administration. #climaterisk #elections

The foreseeable future of climate action in the United States will be local. Inside Climate News interview excerpts: "When Trump was in office the first time, one of the first things he did was take the country out of the Paris Agreement.... Climate action didn’t stop when he did that the first time. It won’t stop this time. But I think clearly, world leaders feel like progress on climate is going to be a lot harder to achieve with Trump in office and with the U.S. out of the official agreement. It’s not a good moment for the climate. I don’t think progress is going to grind to a halt, but it’s not a good moment." 🔹 🔹 🔹 "Voters in Washington firmly rejected a measure on the ballot that would have overturned the state’s signature climate law. In California, the voters approved a $10 billion bond fund for projects that focus on resiliency and coastal adaptation and response to floods and wildfires. And similarly, in Honolulu, voters also approved a climate resiliency fund there. So kind of a mixed result, right? While the national vote was going for Trump, who’s someone who’s sort of avowedly almost a climate denier, you’ve got majorities in these states clearly voting for climate change measures to fund things like adaptation and resiliency." https://lnkd.in/gPEXy5U4 #ActonClimate #resiliency #adaptation #California #Washington #Hawaii #ParisAgreement #environmentaljustice #EJ

And so on the brink of irreversible climate disaster the Americans are voting for somone who has called climate change a hoax and whose very original plan for economic boost resumes itself to ‘drill baby drill’. If Donald Trump were to win the U.S. presidential election again, the potential impact on climate policy will be significant, given his previous term's approach. Rollback of Environmental Regulations and the power of these instituions. Trump had previously pursued deregulation in areas such as air and water quality, energy, and land management. Climate Change Skepticism leading to policies that de-emphasize climate science in government decision-making, including reduced support for climate research and development such as reduced federal support for clean energy projects. Retreat from International Commitments: Under Trump, the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Agreement, though President Biden later rejoined it. Leaving a power vacuum that petro-states will gleefully fill in. Post-disaster relief : cuts to aid and agencies supporting relief.

Why isn't climate change a crucial issue in this election? Robert Reich asks, “Why isn’t climate change a huge issue in the 2024 campaign?” To many of us, it is one of the most important issues in this campaign. Harris and the Democrats have pushed through and supported major legislation to reduce the impact of climate change: * The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $1.2 trillion for transportation and infrastructure spending, including upgrades to the power grid and investments in clean energy. And the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act allocates hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits and investments to tackle climate change. In contrast, Trump and the Republicans continue to call climate change a hoax, even though the evidence is right before their eyes, as seen today with back to back hurricanes in Florida. https://lnkd.in/eN6a-TUM

BIDEN POLITICS: White House Renews Internal Talks on Invoking “Climate Emergency” During Election Year https://hubs.la/Q02tmhXR0 White House officials have renewed discussions about potentially declaring a national climate emergency, an unprecedented step that could unlock federal powers to stifle oil development. #bidenpolitics #whitehouse #climateemergency #climatechange #oilandgasindustry #oildevelopment

In this CONFERENCE CHATTER blog #3E Reporter Stefan Modrich highlights the political tensions in the U.S., particularly when it comes to the next presidential election and climate change policies. Read our reporting from the POLITICO Energy Summit: #climatechange

For the third time in less than a decade, Washington state's climate policy will be decided at the ballot box -- and this November, the stakes couldn't be higher. November's ballot initiative I-2117, bankrolled by wealthy Seattle-area investor Brian Heyood, seeks to repeal the state's #carbon market and prevent anything similar from taking its place. The argument against the state's most ambitious climate policy is its driving up gas prices. And, well, it is doing that but *not* to the extent that Heywood and some other ballot initiative supports are claiming. In reality, the carbon market has likely contributed to about 34 cents per gallon this year, according to a BNEF analysis. Meanwhile, there are also very real costs to repealing this policy, which is crucial for the state meeting its legally binding emissions reduction goals. The big one is scrapping the cap-and-invest program "would dramatically increase pollution that we are fighting in Washington," Gov. Jay Inslee told Bloomberg Green. More than outgoing Gov. Inslee, there's a broad coalition of groups defending the climate program, including but not limited to environmental groups, labor groups, tribal groups, Amazon, Microsoft, and even oil giant BP. Bill Gates has given $1 million to the campaign defending the climate policy from attack. Find my full story (for free) on Washington state's #climate policy and the #ballot initiative seeking to repeal it Bloomberg News, a tag-team with the wonderful Anna Edgerton: https://lnkd.in/eFhKRbi8

If you think IRA stands for Individual Retirement Account - you need to read this. Inflation Reduction Act is a historic investment in America. Read more about it.

♻️🇺🇸 Climate change and the policies made to address its consequences are increasingly becoming politicised issues in many Western democracies. The United States is no exception to this trend, as Aisha Assem explains in North America Desk’s latest spotlight article: “Once seen as a wholly scientific issue, climate change has become a partisan topic and there has never been a more pressing need for U.S. politicians and voters to bridge the political divide. Through its oil and gas operations, the United States is the biggest emitter of methane and the outcome of the 2024 Presidential Election will have significant ramifications for the operation of oil and gas companies, international agreements and global communities.” Full analysis: https://lnkd.in/ePrdYXAT #climate #politicalrisk #trump #inflation #elections #biden #harris

It goes without saying that the New York Times will not be resting on past triumphs — letting George Bush lead us into war with Iraq, hammering Hillary on her emails — but for now we have this harmless but positive overview of Harris' climate-related actions. "As she runs for the White House, Ms. Harris is widely expected to try to protect the climate achievements of the Biden administration, a position that could resonate with voters during a summer of record heat. A clear majority of Americans, 65 percent, wants the country to focus on increasing solar, wind and other renewable energy and not fossil fuels, according to a May survey by the Pew Research Center... ... Mr. Trump has indicated that he would again pull back from the global fight against climate change if he is elected in November. Republicans have targeted the Inflation Reduction Act, promising to overturn it if they win control of Congress and the White House. That law pumps more than $370 billion over 10 years into wind, solar, batteries and electric vehicles. It is designed to help the country move away from fossil fuels, the burning of which is driving up global temperatures. At their convention last week, Republicans promised to halt any transition away from oil, gas and coal, and to promote more fossil fuel development." This is climate advocacy, by the Times' standard. I don't think it will last, and it's an absolute certainty that the Times will turn on Harris in its pathological definition of objectivity. But that's what September is for. Here in midsummer, this is a win. #KamalaHarris #Climatepolicy #IRA #fracking (Query to the Times: "Environmentalists say [fracking] pollutes the air and groundwater." And what does the Times say?)