Rolling Back the Green: Examining Trump’s Environmental Policy Changes and What a Second Term Could Bring

The Trump administration’s approach to environmental policy, particularly during its first term, focused heavily on reducing regulatory barriers and rolling back numerous environmental protections established by previous administrations. This strategy was primarily aimed at bolstering economic growth, supporting domestic industries (especially fossil fuels), and reducing the regulatory burden on businesses.

Key Rollbacks in the First Term

1. Changes to the Clean Power Plan: The Trump administration replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which granted more regulatory authority to individual states to set their own carbon emission standards for power plants, effectively loosening federal oversight.

2. Waters of the United States (WOTUS): The Clean Water Rule, which expanded federal protections to smaller streams and wetlands under WOTUS, was narrowed. The new rule removed protections for many bodies of water, which was seen as beneficial for agriculture and real estate sectors but raised concerns among environmental advocates over water pollution risks.

3. Relaxing Fuel Efficiency Standards: The administration froze fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, halting the progress set by the Obama administration, which required a continuous increase in fuel efficiency over time. This rollback was intended to reduce manufacturing costs but faced criticism for potentially increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

4. Changes to Endangered Species Act Protections: Several amendments were made to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) under Trump’s administration. These changes allowed for economic considerations in determining protections and eased restrictions on development projects in habitats of threatened species, sparking concern over biodiversity preservation.

5. Approval of Fossil Fuel Infrastructure: Trump’s first term included an emphasis on approving infrastructure projects such as pipelines, most notably the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. These projects aimed to strengthen energy independence but were controversial due to environmental and tribal land concerns.

6. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Overhaul: The administration revised NEPA to limit the length and scope of environmental reviews for major federal projects. By reducing the time required for such reviews, the goal was to speed up infrastructure development, though critics argued this weakened safeguards against environmental degradation.

Potential Directions in a Second Term

Should similar policies be pursued in a second term, the focus might continue to be on diminishing federal involvement in environmental regulation in favor of state-led policies, particularly in states with natural resource-based economies. Here are some likely developments:

1. Further Deregulation and Streamlining of Environmental Review Processes: The administration might seek to deepen changes to NEPA and other regulations to further expedite project approvals, potentially increasing the speed at which federal land and resources could be utilized.

2. Expansion of Energy Production Initiatives: A second term might see a push for further oil and gas exploration, including more leases on federal lands, and an emphasis on expanding coal and oil production to promote energy independence. Renewable energy development might see some support, especially if it demonstrates clear economic benefits, but fossil fuel investments are likely to remain prioritized.

3. Less Federal Oversight on Climate Change Initiatives: Any new climate legislation or emission targets could likely be deferred to the states, with an emphasis on cost-benefit analysis and economic impacts. This approach might result in a more uneven national response to climate change, depending on each state’s priorities and resources.

4. Further Relaxation of Wildlife and Habitat Protections: Regulations involving critical habitat protections might be further adjusted to reduce perceived restrictions on land use and development. Protections for endangered species could see additional modifications to allow for increased development in resource-rich areas.

5. Emphasis on Domestic Manufacturing and Resource Utilization: Policies encouraging domestic production and resource utilization could lead to further relaxation of environmental protections, particularly for sectors like mining, timber, and agriculture. This focus might prioritize job creation and resource independence over environmental protection measures.

In summary, a continuation of these policies could lead to substantial long-term impacts on environmental standards, particularly in terms of federal protections for air, water, and biodiversity. Environmental advocates argue that a reduction in federal oversight might compromise the resilience of natural ecosystems, while proponents argue that reducing regulation can offer economic growth and competitive advantages. The balance between economic priorities and environmental preservation would remain a central theme, with ongoing debate about the consequences of this approach for future generations.