I’m writing this on the morning after Trump’s deluge of Inaugural Day executive orders on climate, energy and the environment. His “shock and awe” approach is, of course, intended to intimidate healthy climate advocates so that we acquiesce in the face of apparently overwhelming force. But while the potential negative consequences are indeed very large, none of this signals that all is lost. We can gain some necessary perspective by unpacking these orders and revealing their limits, thereby freeing us from their hold. I will start with the clear losses – but hang in there, because things will improve at least a little as we go along.
First, Trump’s reemergence does certainly signal the demise of the Green New Deal, the climate justice initiative that came to prominence with recapture of the House of Representatives by Democrats in 2018. Trump has ordered the executive branch to terminate all federal government programs associated with DEI, which he thinks is discriminatory. Although not called out by name, this plainly includes President Biden’s Justice 40 initiative, which directed 40% of many federal clean energy, transportation and legacy pollution funds to historically disadvantaged communities.
Trump is also asking the EPA to reexamine (read: undermine) the Biden administration’s approach to the social cost of carbon, an economic metric that assigns an effective price to each ton of carbon dioxide emissions. If the price is set high then the cost-benefit analysis for new climate regulations comes out looking good. This is important because favorable cost-benefit analyses mean that regulations are more likely to prevail against legal challenges. The Biden EPA justified its extraordinarily high carbon price of $190 per ton with an exhaustive analysis projecting in detail how costly the future damages from climate change are likely to be.
Here’s another way to look at it. Regulations are costly to implement, as they often require industries to install new equipment. For example, the Biden EPA’s new rules on carbon dioxide emissions would have required manufacturers to install expensive carbon capture equipment to prevent CO2 from reaching the atmosphere. This cost is worth it, though, because the long-term climate damages to future generations, priced at $190 per ton, are even greater. The social cost of carbon is important because it embodies the principle of intergenerational equity, integrating it with the nitty-gritty of agency action.
This approach is totally gone under Trump. Not only will the social cost of carbon metric get eliminated or cut to a level so low as to be ineffective, but Biden’s groundbreaking EPA regulations on carbon dioxide and methane will also surely be rewritten in much weaker form. This will take awhile, because there is a lengthy legal process involved in canceling and rewriting these very complex rules. But they are effectively dead already, because Trump has also ordered his agency heads to immediately review all existing agency rules that potentially burden development of domestic energy. Based on this, it’s very likely Trump will soon issue further executive orders specifically pausing the enforcement of the methane and carbon dioxide regulations. Repeal of Biden’s aggressive auto and truck tailpipe emissions standards, which are encouraging the switch to EVs, is also on the agenda.
We also have to contend with the fact that Trump will again withdraw the US from the UN Paris Agreement, including our commitments to provide international financing. This puts the US in abysmal company, as we will soon join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only four countries refusing to play ball (even North Korea, Syria and Russia are in). This could not come at a worse moment, because the timeline for sharp emissions reductions is very short, and the economic might of the US has generated incentives for other nations to follow our lead in setting aggressive clean energy targets. China and the European Union will likely assume the climate leadership role that the US is abandoning, but it’s hard to imagine that this betrayal will not empower others to weaken their commitments.
There is no way to put a happy face on Trump’s abdication of international solidarity nor his sharp weakening of domestic climate regulations. But one way to remain sane in the face of his onslaughts is to recognize that solving climate change, first and foremost, means building new clean energy industries. And since companies all over the US and the world are already earning huge incomes in this field, it is certain that they will want to continue to do so. Invoking the profit motive to save us is not exactly the most inspirational approach, but that doesn’t mean it won’t work.
Trump’s executive orders on energy look terrible at first blush, but a little investigation reveals that many of them are more bark than bite. First, his declaration of a national energy emergency is hollow. He can do this under the National Emergencies Act, but that law will probably not provide authority to allow him to cause much additional damage. In fact, most of this executive order addresses expedited permitting of energy projects, and so will apply to renewables and fossil fuels alike. Mining for critical minerals may be accelerated, but this was already a Biden administration priority given that this resource is important for battery energy storage, on the transmission grid and in EVs, alike.
There is also little to fear from the executive orders removing President Biden’s pause on liquefied natural gas project reviews, further opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for mining, or attempting to rescind Biden’s removal of huge tracts of offshore waters from fossil fuel leasing. All of these sound horrible because they are aimed at increasing oil and gas production. But these fuels are international commodities with well-developed markets, so any increased US supply will either reduce global prices (undesirable from the oil/gas company point of view) or replace fuel from elsewhere. This is why half the Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee voted for Senator Joe Manchin’s energy permitting bill, despite its provisions to incentivize fossil fuels. In their judgment, which I think correct, the climate gains to be had from streamlining clean energy project permitting outweighed the potential increase in domestic oil and gas production. In this context, it is worth noting that when the US Interior Department held an auction two weeks ago for Alaskan oil and gas leases, not a single bid was submitted.
It is important to keep our eyes on the prize, namely the development of technologies that will mitigate the climate damage from fossil fuel burning, or replace these fuels altogether. Yes, it’s true that no Republicans voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, but it’s also true that there is substantial bipartisan support for many industries that will play important roles in the clean energy transition. Low-carbon hydrogen, hydropower, biofuels, geothermal energy and carbon capture and sequestration all have considerable Republican support in Congress. Inflation Reduction Act funds, allocated preferentially to red states, will make it very hard for these lawmakers to rescind large parts of the law. The miniscule Republican majority in the House is a further barrier. And unless Senate Republicans outlaw the filibuster outright, an unlikely event, the 60 vote requirement will moderate any laws making it to the President’s desk.
Perhaps the worst aspect of Trump’s executive orders on energy is the specific animus directed at wind energy and EVs (solar power is not specifically targeted). The order on wind energy temporarily withdraws all areas on the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing, and requires review of leasing and permitting projects for all wind farms at sea or on land. The Biden administration invested huge money and effort in offshore wind, which has gained momentum on the East Coast and was even beginning to make headway in the deep Pacific waters off California. Although some already-permitted projects may continue to develop, this attack has potential to seriously damage the industry, causing huge financial losses and dampening the enthusiasm for investment of the billions needed to get successful large projects running. The order gives every impression of having literally nothing behind it other than sheer personal animus on the part of the President, whose longstanding diatribes against “big ugly windmills” are utterly disconnected from any coherent policy platform.
Trump’s executive order to “eliminate the EV mandate” is also motivated by personal animus, but it is on much weaker ground given that the EV tax credits are enshrined in legislation that, as mentioned above, will be politically difficult to reverse. Trump also wants to eliminate California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act to set stricter emissions policy as compared to federal rules, a big driver of EV growth because the California rules are followed by many other blue states. However, this effort failed in his first administration and may well meet the same fate this time. The most likely effect of this executive order will be to cause a great deal of confusion. The EV takeover will probably slow, but automakers have invested so much already that an actual withering away of the industry is unlikely. EV’s are too big to fail.
Trump’s election gives us good reasons to worry about whether we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid creating, in Jim Hansen’s memorable phrase, “a different planet.” But there are also limits to how far any President can bend the direction of American entrepreneurship to his will. Renewable energy is big business, it is cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels, and most people want it. Further, state and local governments can largely set their own agendas – and in view of this, many avenues for effective action remain open. Let’s not panic. A clearheaded view of the challenge and redoubled commitment to preserving our precious biosphere are still the essential keys for winning the day.