The upcoming 2024 US election will have significant implications for the country’s climate and energy policies. While the federal government’s stance on clean energy might see changes depending on who takes office, state-level elections could also influence how much progress is made toward the country’s climate goals.
As both Democrats and Republicans gear up for the election, their different approaches to clean energy and climate initiatives highlight how the nation’s renewable energy future could unfold.
Federal Climate Policy: The Role of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
President Joe Biden’s administration made a significant impact on US climate policy by introducing the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). It is a $1.2 trillion law aimed at bolstering clean energy and reducing carbon emissions. The future of this policy could vary significantly depending on the results of the presidential election in November 2024.
If Vice President Kamala Harris takes the White House, experts predict a continuation of the Biden administration’s focus on implementing and defending the IRA. This would include further efforts to:
- promote clean energy incentives,
- support infrastructure projects, and
- ensure that businesses and communities benefit from the law’s financial provisions.
However, if Donald Trump wins the presidency, the IRA could face significant challenges. A Trump-led administration might attempt to reduce or eliminate some of the IRA’s key climate provisions. It may potentially reallocate funds to other priorities, such as extending Trump-era tax cuts.
However, experts believe a full repeal of the IRA is highly unlikely, even if Republicans gain control of both the House and Senate. The GOP may instead focus on modifying parts of the IRA, such as the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit, which has been a target for criticism by Republican lawmakers.
Experts predict that, regardless of who wins the presidency, there will be efforts to address critical issues such as mineral supply chains. These are essential for the production of clean energy technologies like batteries and electric vehicles.
A narrowly divided Congress, coupled with slim majorities, would make it difficult for either party to implement sweeping changes to energy policy. Instead, smaller legislative actions, such as incentives for critical mineral production or investments in infrastructure for clean energy, are more likely to gain bipartisan support.
What a Harris Administration Could Mean for Clean Energy
If Kamala Harris wins the presidency, her administration will likely continue Biden’s focus on implementing the IRA’s provisions while addressing broader fiscal issues such as the national debt and tax policy. In this scenario, there would be a strong emphasis on capital formation, community engagement, and workforce development in clean energy sectors.
The Department of Energy (DOE), which has transitioned from a primarily research-focused agency to one responsible for deploying clean energy technologies, would play a critical role in Harris’ energy policy.
However, a Harris administration would likely face challenges in advancing new energy legislation, even if the Democrats secure slim majorities in Congress. As Mary Anne Sullivan, senior regulatory counsel at Hogan Lovells, suggests, sweeping new climate policies are unlikely to be Harris’ top priority. Instead, Democrats would likely concentrate on defending and optimizing the IRA rather than pursuing significant new initiatives.
Trump Administration’s Potential Approach to Energy Policy
If Donald Trump returns to the White House, his administration would likely target the IRA for modifications. This is especially true in the case of provisions related to clean energy tax incentives and electric vehicles.
However, wholesale repeal of the law remains improbable due to political and economic constraints. Republican lawmakers have already expressed caution about dismantling the IRA too aggressively, given the law’s role in spurring private sector investment in energy projects.
Additionally, a second Trump administration could adopt a more aggressive stance on mineral extraction, particularly for resources critical to clean energy technologies like lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements. This focus on domestic resource extraction aligns with the GOP’s broader strategy to boost energy independence and reduce reliance on foreign minerals.
A survey by Climate Power and Data for Progress shows Vice President Kamala Harris leading former President Donald Trump on climate and energy issues. This difference is especially significant among young voters, who are likely to be pivotal in the upcoming presidential election, highlighting the candidates’ contrasting approaches to these key issues.
State-Level Elections: A Key Driver for Clean Energy Progress
While much attention is focused on the federal election, state-level elections will play an equally crucial role in determining the trajectory of US climate policy. The 2024 election is expected to be one of the largest in US history for state legislative races. It will have over 6,000 seats up for grabs.
Many of these states have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or net-zero emission goals, which are often closely tied to which party controls the state legislature and governorship.
States with Democratic trifectas—where the party controls both legislative chambers and the governorship—are more likely to advance clean energy initiatives. These include raising renewable energy targets and passing new climate legislation.
However, states controlled by Republican trifectas tend to leave decisions about energy generation to utility companies and market forces, often leading to slower progress on clean energy goals.
Key States to Watch
Several states are expected to see potential shifts in political control, which could significantly impact their clean energy policies. These include New Hampshire, North Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
New Hampshire’s Republican-controlled legislature has slowed clean energy development, but a political shift could push for stronger renewable targets. In North Carolina, the governor’s race could impact the state’s 2050 carbon-neutral goal. Vermont’s 100% RPS by 2035 might face challenges if its Democratic supermajority weakens, while Wisconsin’s redistricting could reduce Republican dominance over energy policies.
A Pivotal Moment for US Climate Policy
Regardless of the election outcome, the transition to clean energy is likely to continue, driven by market forces, private sector investments, and bipartisan support for critical mineral production. However, the pace and scale of that transition will be heavily influenced by the results of federal and state elections. Thus, this election will be a pivotal moment for US climate policy.
The post 2024 US Election and The Fate of $1.2 Trillion Climate and Clean Energy Policy appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy1 year agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19
-
