Donald Trump is President - Again!

A Trump presidency brings a distinctive approach to environmental policy that contrasts sharply with previous administrations. Trump’s stance on environmental issues has largely been driven by a deregulatory agenda aimed at reducing the role of federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in overseeing environmental protections. Here’s a look at what a Trump presidency would mean for U.S. environmental policy.

1. Deregulation of Environmental Protections

Trump has consistently supported rolling back regulations, arguing that excessive environmental regulations stifle economic growth and job creation, particularly in industries like fossil fuels, manufacturing, and mining. His administration previously moved to repeal or weaken key environmental protections, such as the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. Under a Trump administration, could similar rollbacks occur? The potential loosening of regulations on air and water quality, as well as limits on greenhouse gas emissions could mean a step backward in the push towards net-zero by 2030.

2. Support for Fossil Fuels

During his previous term, Trump championed the U.S. fossil fuel industry, promoting “energy independence” through expanded drilling, fracking, and coal mining. Under a new Trump administration, this trend would likely continue, with federal lands and offshore waters potentially opened for further oil and gas exploration. This could significantly impact U.S. energy policy and the country's carbon footprint, making it challenging to meet international climate commitments.

3. Withdrawal from Global Climate Agreements

In 2020, Trump completed the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing that the international accord was unfair to the U.S. economy. While the Biden administration rejoined the agreement, another Trump presidency could see the U.S. step away from climate commitments, which would disrupt global climate collaboration efforts. This withdrawal could make it more challenging for other countries to meet their climate targets and weaken global climate governance.

4. Reduced Funding for Climate and Environmental Initiatives

Trump has proposed cutting federal funding for environmental agencies and research, including the EPA and climate science research at NASA and NOAA. These cuts could stall advancements in clean energy, climate adaptation, and ecological research. Additionally, state-level environmental initiatives may struggle without federal funding, potentially resulting in disparate environmental standards and policies across the country.

5. Potential Impact on Public Lands

Trump has previously advocated for increased development on public lands, including national parks and wildlife refuges. He significantly reduced the size of national monuments, such as Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, opening these lands to potential resource extraction. With Trump's return to office all but confirmed, we could expect continued support for commercial use of public lands, which would increase pressures on these ecosystems and the species they support.

6. Reshaping the EPA’s Role

Trump has favored reducing the EPA’s authority and enforcing fewer regulations, shifting responsibilities to individual states. While this could allow for greater flexibility at the state level, it could also lead to weakened standards and enforcement inconsistencies across the U.S. Critics argue that this approach makes it more difficult to address interstate pollution issues, as states with lenient policies may impact neighboring regions.

7. Implications for Climate Adaptation and Resilience Efforts

Climate adaptation efforts, such as flood control projects, coastal protections, and wildfire management, rely heavily on federal support and coordination. A Trump administration may downplay the need for these efforts, prioritising economic recovery and infrastructure over resilience to climate change impacts. This could leave vulnerable communities, particularly those prone to flooding or wildfire, without the necessary federal resources to prepare for climate risks.

Light at the end of the tunnel?

Despite the negative outlook that a Trump presidency suggests, there is the possibility of positive outcomes, and anecdotally, many industries are pushing ahead with climate policies irrespective of the incumbent or pending Government. Despite the election of Donald Trump, the following factors suggest that progress toward net-zero emissions by 2030 may continue:

1. State and Local Initiatives

Many U.S. states and cities have established their own ambitious climate goals. For instance, California aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, and New York has set a target of 100% clean electricity by 2040. These subnational efforts can drive significant emissions reductions independently of federal policies.

2. Corporate Commitments

Numerous corporations have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints. Companies like Microsoft and Apple have committed to achieving net-zero emissions within the next decade. Such corporate initiatives can substantially contribute to national emissions reductions.

3. Market Trends Favoring Renewables

The cost of renewable energy technologies, such as solar and wind power, has been declining, making them more competitive with fossil fuels. This economic shift encourages continued investment in clean energy, regardless of federal policy changes.

4. Public Support for Climate Action

Public awareness and concern about climate change have been increasing. This growing support can influence policymakers at all levels to pursue climate-friendly policies and initiatives.

5. International Pressure and Collaboration

Global climate agreements and international partnerships can pressure the U.S. to adhere to emissions reduction commitments. Collaborations with other nations can also facilitate sharing technologies and strategies for achieving net-zero targets.

While a Trump presidency may alter the federal approach to climate policy, these factors indicate that progress toward net-zero emissions by 2030 can continue through state actions, corporate leadership, market dynamics, public advocacy, and international cooperation.