By: Jacob Kim
As the 2024 election looms, the stark differences between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on climate change offer more than just contrasting policies—they present fundamentally divergent visions of America’s future. But while the rhetoric from both sides is clear, the underlying philosophies are what truly matter in this debate, particularly as we consider the lens of the “Capitalocene.”
The term “Anthropocene” has become popular to describe our current epoch, where human activities significantly impact the planet. However, many critics argue that it is not humanity as a whole that drives ecological destruction but rather the capitalist system. This perspective reframes the debate by emphasizing that it is the economic structures rooted in capitalism, rather than human activity broadly, that are chiefly responsible for our environmental crises. In this context, Trump and Harris represent opposing forces in this “Capitalocene.”
Trump’s vision for America is deeply rooted in the capitalist ethos. His focus on drilling, deregulation, and fossil fuel expansion aligns with the idea that economic growth, no matter the environmental cost, is paramount. This approach not only reinforces the exploitative dynamics of capitalism but also exacerbates the very inequalities that drive ecological degradation. Trump’s promise to make America the world’s energy leader, even at the expense of environmental sustainability, is emblematic of the Capitalocene—a system that prioritizes short-term profits over long-term planetary health.
On the other hand, Harris, while not without her own compromises, offers a vision that at least acknowledges the need for systemic change. Her support for clean energy initiatives and the Inflation Reduction Act signals a willingness to confront the entrenched interests of the fossil fuel industry. Yet, as her shifting stance on fracking reveals, Harris is also navigating the tightrope between climate action and political pragmatism. This balancing act reflects the challenges of addressing climate change within a capitalist framework, where economic and environmental interests are often at odds.
The 2024 election, therefore, is more than a referendum on climate policies; it is a critical intersection in the battle over how we conceptualize and respond to the climate crisis. Will we continue down the path of the Capitalocene, where the pursuit of profit drives us further into ecological catastrophe? Or will we begin to chart a new course, one that recognizes the need for a more equitable and sustainable relationship with our planet?
Harris and Trump’s contrasting visions are not just about different energy policies but about the broader ideological clash between maintaining the status quo of capitalist exploitation and exploring alternatives that could lead to a more sustainable future. As voters, we must ask ourselves which vision aligns with the kind of world we want to leave behind—not just for ourselves, but for future generations.
Sources
Energy Outlook 
Leave a comment