The fact that Trump would like to roll back Joe Biden’s climate policies is hardly shocking. To what far Trump may go is the subject of current events.
An article in The Washington Post states that during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, Trump reportedly requested oil executives to donate $1 billion to his campaign. This was done in order to undermine Biden’s initiatives to shift the US towards renewable energy and electric automobiles.
Despite the surprising and overtly transactional tone of the offer, it is consistent with Trump’s political philosophy and his denial of climate change. Read this AWN piece on rising ocean temperatures to get proof that global warming is real. Alternatively, peruse the images of Vietnam’s heat wave-related fish mortality toll in the hundreds of thousands.
I discussed Trump’s agenda for reelection and Biden’s stance on climate change with Ella Nilsen, a climate reporter for AWN. One intriguing thing I discovered is that many of the states that are considered red have received the majority of the funds allocated by Biden and the Democrats to encourage manufacturing.
If Trump were to become president, how would climate policy appear?
According to Wolf, Trump has offered oil executives a friendly administration in exchange for $1 billion for his campaign, according to the Washington Post. The oil sector is reportedly working on executive orders that Trump might sign on day one, according to Politico. In his “dictator for a day” vision, Trump has pledged to prioritize energy production and immigration. We don’t know much about Trump’s potential energy policy changes, but what do we know?
Trump reversed nearly a hundred Obama-era environmental regulations and policies during his first year in office, according to NILSEN.
Over the course of its presidency, Biden’s government has mostly reversed Trump’s policies, going so far as to impose stricter rules on pollutant emissions from power plants, autos, and the oil and gas industry.
Trump has promised to go in the opposite direction as Biden once again, this time by supporting fossil fuels and, more specifically, oil and gas drilling.
Biden: a complex picture
Wolf: Despite their climatic verbal disputes, the United States has not reduced oil output under Biden’s presidency. Actually, the United States is still, by a wide margin, the leading oil producer in the world.
In what ways does the present government rank in the eyes of climate activists?
NILSEN: Biden’s standing among climate advocates is divisive.
The most comprehensive climate bill of our time was passed into law by him, on the one hand. In addition to creating an American Climate Corps—a crucial demand of activists—and conserving numerous public areas, his administration has enacted some rather ambitious measures reducing pollutants that contributes to global warming.
In contrast, the government approved the Willow oil drilling project in Alaska, which sparked a strong backlash from young environmentalists and others on social media. Given the current surge in oil and gas production in the US, it is highly unlikely that Biden will exercise his executive authority to halt drilling for fossil fuels, despite the demands of youth climate groups.
Has the climate legislation passed by Democrats under Biden begun to bear fruit?
WOLF: The majority-Democrat-backed Inflation Reduction Act’s climate funding was touted as the biggest-ever investment in renewable energy and environmental legislation.
Is the investment paying off?
So far, yes (Nilsen nods). Electric vehicles, battery manufacture, solar power, and wind power are just a few examples of the clean energy sectors that have benefited greatly from the hundreds of billions of dollars in new US manufacturing that the IRA has already attracted.
While most of the money has gone to red states, states that could switch in the 2024 election, such as Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan, have also reaped substantial benefits.
What causes the financing to be concentrated in red states?
WOLF: Is it politically motivated, or is it simply related to the fact that Texas experiences windy weather?
NILSEN: It’s true that many red states have strong winds; states in this category, including South Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, and Iowa, are major users and producers of wind energy.
However, additional factors also contribute. Some red states have more favorable permitting and construction policies, while others have less stringent union labor rules, which is another attraction for large corporations.
One industry accounts for one-third of all US emissions.
The opposition against electric vehicles has been in the news a lot recently, WOLF. Trump claims that Biden supports banning gas-powered vehicles, which is not true. What role does switching to EVs have in combating global warming?
NILSEN: Our cars are a major factor in fighting global warming.
The largest single source of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States is the transportation sector, which is responsible for slightly less than one third of all emissions.
Assuming the electricity used to charge them is also generated from clean sources, electric vehicles are still significantly less polluting than gas-powered vehicles, even when the minerals required for their batteries are mined.
If the federal government abandons climate policy, would the states be able to continue?
WOLF: California and other climate-focused states were already ahead of the curve before Biden assumed office. Will it go on regardless of Trump’s victory?
Not at all: Legislators in blue states like California and Washington, as well as several purple states in the Midwest like Minnesota and Michigan, have enacted some extremely progressive climate legislation. Even if Trump wins the presidency, that effort will go on in the United States.
However, with time running out, it will be crucial to have the federal government also taking action to mitigate global warming.
Tell me what’s going on in Washington.
The wolf: A significant piece of climate legislation passed by parliamentarians would be preferable than executive action by presidents or regulations written by the EPA to address the climate. Is there any sign that the country is considering a different approach to energy?
While it is true that lawmakers accomplished much by passing the IRA, NILSEN notes that some in Congress have claimed that this is only the beginning.
A carbon tax or carbon tariff on polluting goods like cement and steel might be considered in the legislature in 2025, when the tax cuts that President Trump implemented in 2017 are set to expire.
Obviously, the party in control in Congress and the president have a huge impact on what can be accomplished.
