Dr. Samuel B. Hoff is a George Washington Distinguished Professor Emeritus and an internship director at Delaware State University.
The signs of serious climate change on Earth are unmistakable. From ocean warming, sea rise, droughts and heat waves to clear evidence of greenhouse gas damage, there is a critical need to pay attention to these environmental warnings. However, the second Trump administration is picking up where the first term’s team left.
During the first presidential term of Donald Trump, an antienvironmental agenda emerged from the start, culminating in the reversal or retraction of almost 100 measures. Among the first moves was the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris climate agreement, an international pact, adopted in 2016, to combat climate change. Other policies targeted energy expansion by authorizing increased gas and oil drilling in the Arctic and similar sensitive areas, like national parks. In lifting a moratorium on coal leasing, the first Trump team likewise withdrew limits on mercury and methane emissions. Finally, in 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an order coming from the president that seriously weakened the National Environmental Policy Act.
Just a year into its second term, the Trump administration has already enacted a series of top-down actions and displayed other collective behavior that can only be seen as hostile to the environment. To wit:
There are multiple reasons for the manner by which Donald Trump and his followers have treated the environment. First, an ideological bent that denies the facts on climate change has enveloped the Trump presidencies like a magnet. Meanwhile, the warming of the planet’s atmosphere from preindustrial levels is accelerating quicker than America’s national debt. Then, there is the “America first” gimmick, which was used to cancel the Paris climate agreement. But neither is consistent with long-term Republican policies, and there are many conservatives who are conservationists.
Another rationale for Trump’s dissing of environmental policies is money. Still, how much sense does it make to force states to change energy policies that they took years, maybe decades, to develop? Both the federal government and states have invested billions into the electric vehicle market. In 2015, the United States led the world in this technology. A little more than a decade later, America has lost its lead in the area and, with it, the time and resources needed. Ultimately, there is a strong argument that it is more expensive to ignore climate change’s impact than to balance reasonable policies. For example, a study of Pennsylvania’s long-term energy policies found that the state will save more than $12 billion on health costs with environmentally conscious rules.
The third explanation for the antienvironmental frenzy fomented by Donald Trump is pure party politics. Clearly, Trump gets off on demeaning his presidential predecessors, Democrats both. So, anything that can be done to cancel the previous administrations’ environmental policies is like catnip.
What can be done to confront the various ways that the Trump administration regards climate change and long-standing positive environmental regs?
Of course, all Americans must be educated about these policies, a precursor to advocacy. When Congress fails to act, the courts can be counted on to at least hear critical cases. That is what is happening now with 24 states that have sued the Trump White House for the 2009 endangerment finding reversal. Further, California is currently battling the federal government in court to prevent any lessening of its emission standards.
The specter of accountability awaits those who neglect to comprehend the facts about climate change or who purposely ignore the dangers to the environment.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
