Election 2020: Where do Trump and Biden stand on the environment?
With the US federal election fast approaching, it is worthwhile to explore the factual record of what President Trump has done regarding the environment and to compare that with Mr. Biden’s proposed policies in this space. The hope is that this will help you decide whose policies you prefer.
Summary
The Trump approach:
After significant pro-environmental policy enactments made by the Obama administration, Trump has been true to his word and has followed an unwavering policy of deregulation meant to favor industry–from coal to oil & gas to auto makers and beyond. Whether it concerns carbon dioxide emissions, the release of toxic chemicals from mining, opening up our coastal areas to oil and gas drilling or reducing protection for endangered species, the current administration has resolutely stood on the side of its financial backers in industry. Far from encouraging the sort of “confluence” solutions proposed in this blog to bring about positive economic and environmental change, President Trump has intentionally abandoned the regulatory role of government in favor of enabling his business friends to make their own rules. He also has a disregard for scientists who warn of the dangers of global warming, calling it a “hoax” and likely a plot by the Chinese government to undermine American manufacturing. (See specific policy details below.)
The Biden approach: (Read more about Biden’s plan here)
Mr. Biden’s proposals on the environment are diametrically opposed to those of President Trump. While these are, of course, only proposals at this stage, they show a clear intent to make the environment, and particularly climate change, a central focus of his administration should he become president. A few quotations from his manifesto paint a clear picture. Specific policy pronouncements are below.
“Getting to a 100% clean energy economy is not only an obligation, it’s an opportunity. We should fully adopt a clean energy future, not just for all of us today, but for our children and grandchildren, so their tomorrow is healthier, safer, and more just.”
“ We have to get rid of the old way of thinking that the clean economy and jobs don’t go together. They do....There is a huge opportunity to revitalize the U.S. energy sector, boost growth economy-wide, and re-claim the mantle as the world’s clean energy leader and top exporter…More than three million people in the United States are already employed in the clean energy economy. But, that is only the beginning of what is possible if we harness all of our talent and creativity. If executed strategically, our response to climate change can create more than 10 million well-paying jobs in the United States.”
My approach:
While I clearly lean toward Mr. Biden‘s strategy, the Democrat policy documents on the environment do not adopt the holistic “Confluence” approach which I espouse in this blog. This requires changing the structure of our economy from root to branch to bring about pro environmental and pro economic results. Essential to this thesis is the recognition that our economy, based on the first industrial revolution, fails to put any value or price on the natural systems which are the foundation stone of all economic activity and of life itself. The result: the race for growth using this outdated economic model has led to a massive erosion of the “natural capital” of the planet, so that it is now stressed to the point of breaking. I believe we can redesign our economy to make industry, agriculture and all economic activities work in symbiosis with our biosystem and that doing so will not only heal the planet and reduce global warming, but also generate huge numbers of jobs and economic opportunities. To do this requires governments to lead, using taxation, regulation and subsidization to set capitalism/free enterprise on the right course and then let them innovate and strive to maximize the new economic opportunities created. For sure, there will be losers in this transition; but there will be many, many more winners. And the planet will survive.
Details
Trump administration and the environment
Appointees: Of foxes and hen houses
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
The EPA’s mission as stated on their website is “to protect human health and the environment”. (https://www.epa.gov)
To fulfill this mandate, President Trump’s first choice to lead the agency was Scott Pruitt who, as Attorney General of Oklahoma, had challenged EPA regulations more than a dozen times.
When Pruitt was forced out by Congress under the cloud of ethics investigations, he was replaced by Andrew Wheeler, a long time coal industry lobbyist.
The EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, William Wehrum, has fought for years to roll back air pollution rules on behalf of his energy, utility and chemical clients.
This past June, a group of former Environmental Protection Agency employees released a report condemning the direction the agency has gone under President Trump. The group called ‘Save EPA’ argues that the Trump administration has been relentless in its efforts to “roll back public health and environmental protections, weaken enforcement of those protections, and cripple the EPA’s capacity to address new and existing problems...Virtually all the changes that Trump has made have one thing in common: They help polluters and harm the public, now and in the future”. (The Hill, 4 June 2020)
The Department of the Interior:
This department is responsible for the ‘management and conservation’ of most federal land and natural resources. It oversees such agencies as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Geological Survey and the National Park Service.
President Trump’s first appointee for the top job of Secretary of the Interior was Ryan Zinke, a man with a long track record of opposing pro-environmental legislation. As Secretary, he made it his mission to open more federal lands for oil, gas and mineral exploration and extraction. His expenditures on expensive flights and the like raised ethical questions that were eventually referred to the Justice Dept, at which point he was effectively forced out of his job.
He was replaced by his deputy David Bernhardt, an attorney and oil and farm industry lobbyist. He was investigated internally in the department for his involvement in rolling back wildlife protections that would benefit his former clients in the California farming industry, but still holds his position as Secretary.
Policies and amendments:
Climate change:
President Trump and seemingly most of his cabinet appointees do not believe the opinions of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world that the current trajectory of global climate change will have catastrophic impacts. Nor do they accept that human activity through the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a primary contributor to climate change.
Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, which set targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, leaving the US the only nation that is not part of the agreement. This withdrawal is not only an abdication of leadership on a part of a nation that is historically the largest contributor to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but also puts US companies in a more difficult position in seeking the huge business opportunities to come from the transition to cleaner energy sources and technologies.
In Sept 2019, the administration replaced the Obama Clean Power Plan, a policy that sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, with the Affordable Clean Energy rule which does not cap emissions. This despite an EPA study indicating that the policy could result in 1,400 additional premature deaths from air pollution.
The administration also revoked an Obama executive order that called for the federal government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% over ten years.
Mercury emissions from power plants:
In April 2020, the Trump administration effectively weakened regulations on the release of mercury and other toxic metals from coal and oil fired power plants.
The new EPA rule does not actually eliminate the restrictions on the release of mercury, a heavy metal linked to brain damage. Rather, it creates a new method of calculating the costs and benefits of curbing such pollution, reducing the value of the positive health benefits while raising their economic costs.
This basically justifies loosening restrictions on any pollutant that the fossil fuel industry and utilities deem too costly to control.
Oil and gas drilling:
The Trump administration supports energy development on federal land, including oil and gas drilling in national parks.
Soon after taking office, President Trump began to implement his ‘America First Energy Plan’, signing executive orders to approve two controversial oil pipeline developments.
In 2018, the Dept of the Interior announced plans to allow drilling in nearly all US waters, the largest expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing ever proposed.
In 2019, the Administration completed plans for opening the entire coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling.
Methane leak regulations:
In 2019, the Trump EPA proposed eliminating existing standards requiring oil and gas companies to monitor and repair leaks of methane–a super pollutant with heat trapping ability in the atmosphere 20x that of CO2. This was pushed through in the summer of 2020.
The Environmental Defense Fund thinks this will lead to an additional 5 million tons of methane emissions per annum. (https://www.epa.gov)
The administration also changed rules to allow states and the EPA to take longer to develop and approve plans aimed at cutting methane emissions from existing landfills.
Clean up requirements:
The current administration scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution before being granted the right to mine.
Similarly, they withdrew a requirement that Gulf of Mexico oil rig owners must prove they can cover the costs of removing rigs once they stop producing.
They also revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams.
Auto fuel economy and emission standards:
More than 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in the USA come from cars and light duty trucks/SUVs. The Obama administration’s 2012 fuel economy plan called for a doubling in fuel economy for new cars and light trucks to more that 50 miles per gallon by 2025–equivalent to a real world average of 36 miles per gallon.
In April 2018, Scott Pruitt announced that the EPA was rolling back the Obama administration standards.
California, which has a waiver that allows it to set its own auto emissions standards, which it used historically to combat its smog problem, made it clear that it was sticking to the Obama policy. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have adopted the California standard as their own on grounds that Pruitt’s action violated The Clean Air Act. Four automakers–Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW–also rejected the Trump administration proposal and adopted California emission standards. The Federal Dept of Justice began an antitrust investigation into these four companies on the basis that their working together would restrict consumer choice. However, the department abandoned the investigation with no action in February 2020.
The Trump government’s vehicle emission standards are projected to result in an additional billion tons of CO2 emissions per annum.
LED light bulbs:
The US Department of Energy recently rolled back a common sense policy, originally established by the Bush administration in 2007, that requires new light bulbs to meet stringent energy efficiency standards. By boosting demand for highly efficient LED light bulbs, thus creating economies of scale in production, the policy resulted in the price of LED bulbs falling by roughly 90%.
The rollback, while it will allow households to buy cheaper, less efficient bulbs, is expected to result in an increase of carbon emissions by 34 million tons per year by 2025. It will also cost households more in higher electricity bills, outweighing the savings from buying cheaper light bulbs. (World Resources Institute, April 2020)
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs):
Used in air conditioners and refrigerators, these super pollutants, once in the atmosphere, trap thousands of times more heat than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.
The bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, currently being considered in the Senate, would put the USA on a phase down schedule in line with the Kigali Amendment agreed to by 81 countries.
However, the Trump administration continues to oppose this legislation even though it is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute.
The Biden Plan:
Climate Change: This is the major focus so far of the Biden approach.
Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050.
Establish an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025.
Re-commit the USA to the Paris Agreement on climate change. Work with allies to set even more ambitious goals than those proposed in Paris and make sure they are transparent and enforceable.
Invest $400 billion over ten years (twice the investment in the Apollo space program in today’s dollars) to promote green energy and industrial innovation. With this in mind, establish the Advanced Research Projects Agency to promote game-changing, affordable technologies to help the USA achieve its 100% clean energy target–from battery storage and efficient high voltage grid systems to hydrogen power to carbon capture and sequestration to decarbonizing industry and agriculture.
Harness the purchasing power of the Federal government procurement system, which spends $500 billion every year, to drive green innovation–from more energy efficient buildings to using zero emission vehicles.
Set higher efficiency standards on appliances and buildings with an objective of reducing carbon emissions from these sources by 50% by 2030. Use regulation and tax incentives to facilitate this and make it apply to low-income homes being built as well.
Commit that every federal infrastructure investment should reduce climate pollution and require any federal permitting decision to consider the effects of greenhouse gas emission on climate change.
Require public companies to disclose climate risks and the greenhouse gas emissions caused by their operations and supply chains.
Foreign Policy:
Fully integrate climate change into US foreign policy and national security strategies, as well as the country’s approach to trade. Condition future trade agreements on partners’ commitments to meet their enhanced Paris climate targets.
Push for strong new measures to stop other countries from cheating on their climate commitments. This includes preventing other nations, like China, from gaming the system by becoming destination economies for polluters, thus undermining US climate efforts and exploiting American workers and businesses.
Stop China from subsidizing coal exports and outsourcing carbon pollution. China is the largest emitter of carbon in the world, and through its massive Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing is also annually financing billions of dollars of dirty fossil fuel energy projects across Asia, Africa and beyond. Mr. Biden intends to rally a united front of nations to hold China accountable.
Seek a G20 commitment to end all export finance subsidies for high-carbon projects. This builds on past commitments from the G7 and multilateral export finance institutions to eliminate financing for coal power plants.It will apply to US agencies as well.
Demand a worldwide ban on fossil fuel subsidies with the United States to lead by example by cutting fossil fuel subsidies at home in Mr. Biden’s first year as president. Re-direct these resources to the historic investment in clean energy infrastructure.
Take steps to make domestic polluters bear the full cost of their carbon pollution. At the same time, the Biden Administration will impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations. This will ensure that American workers and their employers are not at a competitive disadvantage and simultaneously encourage other nations to raise their climate ambitions.
Pollution
Enhance and enforce standards to reduce pollution caused by industry.
Make polluters pay for the environmental damage they cause.
Direct the EPA and Justice Department to pursue these cases to the fullest extent permitted by law and, when needed, seek additional legislation to hold corporate executives personally accountable – including jail time where merited.
Oil and gas drilling:
Pursue a global moratorium on offshore drilling in the Arctic and reestablish climate change as a priority for the Arctic Council.
Methane:
Enforce aggressive methane pollution limits for new and existing oil and gas operations.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs):
Embrace the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. This could deliver a 0.5 degree Celsius reduction in global warming by mid-century.
Auto fuel economy and emission standards:
Develop a new fuel economy standard that goes beyond what the Obama-Biden Administration put in place.
Restore the full tax credit to incentivize purchases of electric vehicles. Target middle class consumers. Where possible, prioritize the purchase of vehicles made in America.
Work with state and city authorities and private enterprises to facilitate the deployment of more than 500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030.
Urban development:
Work with state and local governments to mitigate the climate impact of urban sprawl. Many lower- and middle-income Americans are forced to live far away from job centers due to high housing costs, leading not only to workers being overburdened by long commutes, but also to higher emissions associated with increased traffic and extra-long commuting times.
Altering local regulations to eliminate sprawl and allow for denser, more affordable housing near public transit would cut commute times for many of the country’s workers while decreasing their carbon footprint. This would not only combat climate change, but also save consumers money.
Promote housing energy efficiency gains via both regulation and tax incentives.
Greening industry:
Allocated tax credits and subsidies will be available for businesses to upgrade equipment and processes, invest in expanded or new factories, and deploy low-carbon technologies, as long as all stakeholders are part of the process. The objective is to create a bottom-line win for businesses, jobs, clean energy, and long-term community investment.
Where states will lose employment due to the new pro environmental policies, use federal subsidies and investment to assist them to develop new economic strategies focused on low-carbon manufacturing technology and help fund training programs to assist in the transition.
Agriculture:
Incentivize improved farming practices that enhance soil carbon sequestration, reduce carbon emissions from farm vehicles and improve the fertility of the land. Use tax levers to encourage this.
Protect biodiversity:
Work to slow extinction rates and help leverage natural climate solutions by conserving 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030.
Permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other areas impacted by President Trump’s attack on federal lands and waters, establishing more national parks and monuments.
Ban new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters and modify royalties for ongoing projects to account for climate costs.
Establish targeted programs to enhance reforestation.
Develop renewables on federal lands and waters with the goal of doubling offshore wind power generation by 2030.
Create a clean energy export and climate investment initiative.
Make it a government-wide effort to promote American clean energy exports, offering incentives to US firms that supply low-carbon solutions to the international market in order to spur job growth at home and make America a leader in clean energy technologies.
Funding:
Mr. Biden’s climate and environmental justice proposals will require a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next ten years. By leveraging additional private sector, state and local government investments they hope to lift the investment level to more than $5 trillion. How to pay for this?
Reverse the Trump tax cuts that primarily benefited the rich and corporations.
Close tax loopholes and evasion that encourage outsourcing of jobs to other parts of the world.
End subsidies for fossil fuel development. Use the money raised to invest in a Clean Energy Revolution that creates jobs here at home.
My Thoughts:
As mentioned in the summary section at the top of this article, clearly I am aligned much more closely to Mr. Biden’s proposals than to anything President Trump has done regarding the environment.
Biden’s proposals are well fleshed out in the realm of climate change, with very specific initiatives and timetables. This is to be applauded.
However, his other proposals regarding environmental issues, while having the heart in the right place, generally lack specifics. Consider the points on curbing industrial pollution and also the potential of regenerative agriculture–the subject of my next blog.
Still, Rome was not built in a day as the expression goes. There will be time to delve deeper into these matters if he comes to power. And if he is to set one priority, curbing global warming is a good one. (Note though that there was no mention of a carbon tax, which, frankly, many industries are ready and willing to embrace.)
My problem with Joe Biden’s proposals is that they don’t go deep enough.
As discussed at length in my thesis article, I believe that to arrest the obliteration of the biosystems on this planet, we need a new industrial revolution–a complete redesign of our economic structure to bring about positive environmental, social and economic results. This is not just about using less resources in production or pushing less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but rather changing the entire productive system so that it is not environmentally destructive in the first place. Our economic processes should be incentivized to enhance the natural world which is the basis of all life on earth, not willy-nilly destroy it.
In brief, we need to move from a linear cradle to grave economy to a circular cradle to cradle one, as modeled in nature itself. We can transform industry, agriculture, energy production and all economic activities in-between from our current wasteful and destructive model to something more durable and sustainable, in sync with nature and more equitable in the sharing of its benefits.
To achieve this, governments must lead, utilizing their power of taxation, regulation and subsidization to establish the rules under which capitalism works. But the private sector needs to be in the vanguard of finding and implementing environmental solutions, solutions that can be hugely profitable and create a vast array of new jobs in the economy.
And there is no time like the present. The current pandemic and the clear weaknesses it has displayed in our societies could be a crucible; a rare opportunity for such a systemic change. We need to seize it with both hands!