Highlights:
Trump Announced The U.S. Would Withdraw From The Paris Climate Agreement. According to CNN, “President Donald Trump announced Thursday his decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, a sweeping step that fulfills a campaign promise while seriously dampening global efforts to curb global warming.” [CNN, 6/1/17]
November 2019: The Trump Administration Formally Announced It Intended To Withdraw From The Paris Agreement Beginning A Year-Long Count Down. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration formally notified the United Nations on Monday that it would withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change, leaving global climate diplomats to plot a way forward without the cooperation of the world’s largest economy. The action, which came on the first day possible under the accord’s complex rules on withdrawal, begins a yearlong countdown to the United States exit and a concerted effort to preserve the Paris Agreement, under which nearly 200 nations have pledged to cut greenhouse emissions and to help poor countries cope with the worst effects of an already warming planet.” [New York Times, 11/4/19]
Trump’s Letter To The UN Would Allow Trump To Officially Pull The U.S. Out The Day After The 2020 Election. According to the New York Times, “The letter to the United Nations on Monday would allow Mr. Trump to officially pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement the day after the presidential election. The United States would still be allowed to attend negotiations and weigh in on proceedings but would be downgraded to observer status.” [New York Times, 11/4/19]
Under The Deal, Each Participating Country Was Required To Write A Plan To Significantly Reduce Its Carbon Emissions, With Stricter Plans And Progress Reports Written Every Five Years. According to the New York Times, “The core of the Paris deal is a requirement that every nation take part. Ahead of the Paris talks, governments of 186 nations put forth public plans detailing how they would cut carbon emissions through 2025 or 2030. Those plans alone, once enacted, will cut emissions by half the levels required to stave off the worst effects of global warming. The national plans vary vastly in scope and ambition — while every country is required to put forward a plan, there is no legal requirement dictating how, or how much, countries should cut emissions. Thus, the Paris pact has built in a series of legally binding requirements that countries ratchet up the stringency of their climate change policies in the future. Countries will be required to reconvene every five years, starting in 2020, with updated plans that would tighten their emissions cuts. Countries will also be legally required to reconvene every five years starting in 2023 to publicly report on how they are doing in cutting emissions compared to their plans. They will be legally required to monitor and report on their emissions levels and reductions, using a universal accounting system.” [New York Times, 12/12/15]
The Agreement Included A Goal Of Reaching Zero Net Emissions In The Second Half Of The Century. According to the Guardian, “After 20 years of fraught meetings, including the past two weeks spent in an exhibition hall on the outskirts of Paris, negotiators from nearly 200 countries signed on to a legal agreement on Saturday evening that set ambitious goals to limit temperature rises and to hold governments to account for reaching those targets. Government and business leaders said the agreement, which set a new goal to reach net zero emissions in the second half of the century, sent a powerful signal to global markets, hastening the transition away from fossil fuels and to a clean energy economy.” [Guardian, 12/12/15]
The New York Times: The Agreement Was A “Landmark Accord” And A “Historic Breakthrough On An Issue That Has Foiled Decades Of International Efforts To Address Climate Change.” According to the New York Times, “With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave off the most drastic effects of climate change. The deal, which was met with an eruption of cheers and ovations from thousands of delegates gathered from around the world, represents a historic breakthrough on an issue that has foiled decades of international efforts to address climate change.” [New York Times, 12/12/15]
The Paris Agreement Included A Goal Of Keeping Global Warming Below 2 Degrees Celsius. According to the Guardian, “The deal set a high aspirational goal to limit warming below 2C and strive to keep temperatures at 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – a far more ambitious target than expected, and a key demand of vulnerable countries. It incorporates commitments from 187 countries to reduce emissions, which on their own would only hold warming to between 2.7C and 3C.” [Guardian, 12/12/15]
Climate Scientists Predicted That 2 Degrees Celsius Is The Maximum Temperature Increase The Planet Can Handle Before The Consequences Of Climate Change Are Inevitable. According to the New York Times, “The new deal will not, on its own, solve global warming. At best, scientists who have analyzed it say, it will cut global greenhouse gas emissions by about half enough as is necessary to stave off an increase in atmospheric temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That is the point at which, scientific studies have concluded, the world will be locked into a future of devastating consequences, including rising sea levels, severe droughts and flooding, widespread food and water shortages and more destructive storms.” [New York Times, 12/12/15]
Researchers At The Climate Interactive Predicted The Earth Would Warm By 3.6 Degrees Celsius By 2100 If Trump Left The Paris Agreement. According to Bloomberg, “While a 2-degree shift wouldn’t be noticeable during the course of a day, it would represent a historic change for the Earth as a whole that’s faster than any change in the climate since the last ice age ended some 10,000 years ago. The scenarios that scientists are looking at depend on measurements of air and water temperatures taken at hundreds of sites around the world, as well as complex models about how trends will evolve in the coming decades. Trump’s move would clearly make the outlook worse, according to Climate Interactive, a team of modelers backed by institutions such as MIT Sloan School of Management and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. They estimate that the world would warm by 3.6 degrees Celsius (6.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 when compared with pre-industrial levels if Trump quits Paris, more than the 3.3-degree baseline scenario.” [Bloomberg, 5/30/17]
The Clean Power Plan Intended To Substitute Energy From Coal-Fired Power Plants With Energy From Renewable Sources, Like Wind And Solar. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power Plan – a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes real action on climate change. […] In the final Clean Power Plan, EPA determined that BSER consists of three building blocks: […] Building Block 3 - substituting increased electricity generation from new zero-emitting renewable energy sources (like wind and solar) for reduced generation from existing coal-fired power plants.” [Archive - Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 4/11/24]
The Clean Power Plan Intended To Substitute Energy From Coal-Fired Power Plants With Energy From Natural Gas Plants. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power Plan – a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes real action on climate change. […] In the final Clean Power Plan, EPA determined that BSER consists of three building blocks: […] Building Block 2 -substituting increased electricity generation from lower-emitting existing natural gas plants for reduced generation from higher-emitting coal-fired power plants.” [Archive - Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 4/11/24]
The Clean Power Plan Restricted Greenhouse Gas Emissions At Coal-Fired Power Plants. According to PBS NewsHour, “As part of the roll-back, Trump will initiate a review of the Clean Power Plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants. The regulation, which was the former president’s signature effort to curb carbon emissions, has been the subject of long-running legal challenges by Republican-led states and those who profit from burning oil, coal and gas.” [PBS NewsHour, 3/27/17]
The Clean Power Plan Included Incentives For Investment In Wind And Solar Development And Energy Efficiency Programs. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “Helping Communities Benefit from Clean Energy The Clean Power Plan gives states the opportunity to ensure that communities share in the benefits of a clean energy economy, including energy efficiency and renewable energy. EPA is creating a Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) to reward early investments in wind and solar generation, as well as demand-side energy efficiency programs implemented in low-income communities, that deliver results during 2020 and/or 2021.” [Archive - Environmental Protection Agency, 1/19/17]
2017: Trump Executive Order Instructed The EPA To Review Clean Power Plan. According to Time, “The Clean Power Plan ranks as the most significant regulation targeted by the executive order, and Trump cannot undo that measure with a simple stroke of the pen. Instead, his move Tuesday will direct the EPA to begin reevaluating the rule. A senior White House official told journalists Monday that the process could result in “revising, improving or updating” the regulation and not necessarily outright repeal appeal.” [Time, 3/28/17]
June 2019: Trump’s EPA Released A Final Rule To Repeal The Clean Power Plan. According to the Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program, “June 19, 2019 EPA releases the final ACE rule along with the final repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The ACE rule has several components: A determination of the best system of emission reduction for greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants as limited to modifications that can be made “within the fenceline” of each plant, A list of ‘candidate technologies’ states can use when developing their compliance plans. New implementing regulations for emission guidelines under Clean Air Act section 111(d).” [Harvard – Environmental & Energy Law Program, accessed 7/15/20]
July 2019: Trump’s EPA Published A Clean Power Plan Replacement Rule In Federal Register, Which Became Effective September 2019. According to the Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program, “July 8, 2019 The final rule is published in the Federal Register and becomes effective on September 6, 2019.” [Harvard – Environmental & Energy Law Program, accessed 7/15/20]
The EPA Projected That By 2030, The CPP Would Save Americans An Average Of $8 Per Month Through Increased Energy Efficiency. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “States, cities, businesses and homeowners have been working for years to increase energy efficiency and reduce growth in demand for electricity. EPA projects that the Clean Power Plan will continue – and accelerate – this trend. Nationally, this means that, in 2030 when the plan is fully implemented, electricity bills would be expected to be roughly 8 percent lower than they would been without the actions in state plans. That would save Americans about $8 on an average monthly residential electricity bill, savings they wouldn't see without the states' efforts under this rule.” [Archive - Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 4/11/24]
A Harvard University Study Showed That Nearly All Regions Of The U.S. Stood To Gain Economically From The CPP, With Net Benefits Of $38 Billion Per Year. According to Think Progress, “When the Environmental Protection Agency published a rule to reduce carbon emissions from power plants last year, critics quickly said the plan was too economically costly for businesses and home electricity bills. But now, a new study led by researchers from Harvard University finds that nearly all regions of the U.S. stand to gain economically from a power plant carbon standard like the Clean Power Plan, and do so fairly quickly. Using a scenario that somewhat resembles the Clean Power Plan (CPP) — a policy moderately stringent and highly flexible — researchers calculated net benefits of some $38 billion a year, according to the study published Wednesday in the online journal PLOS ONE.” [Think Progress, 6/9/16]
The National Resources Defense Council Estimated The CPP Would Save Up To $54 Billion Per Year. According to the National Resources Defense Council, “Economists believe that in 2030, the Clean Power Plan could save the country $20 billion in climate-related costs and deliver $14 billion to $34 billion in health benefits. The shift to energy efficiency and cleaner power will also save the average American family $85 on its electricity bills in 2030.” [National Resources Defense Council, 9/29/17]
Since 1968, California Had Been Allowed By The Clean Air Act To Set Stricter Rules On Pollution Than The Country As A Whole. According to Vox, “California has had an exemption under the federal Clean Air Act since 1968 to set its own rules for vehicle emissions, which were often stricter than those set by the EPA. Carmakers weren’t big fans of this exception because it meant that they would either have to design cars specifically to comply with California rules or effectively California would set the standard for the rest of the country.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
2012: The Obama Administration Announced Emissions Regulations That Would Bring The Country’s Standards In Line With California’s. According to Vox, “In 2012, the Obama administration worked with California, the EPA, and the Department of Transportation to set a similar benchmark for fuel economy across the country. Under the Obama-era car emissions regulations, companies would have had to reach 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 if they were solely to meet the emissions target by increasing fuel efficiency. Shortly before leaving office, the Obama administration conducted a midterm evaluation to see if these targets were still achievable and concluded they were.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
March 2017: Trump’s EPA Announced That It Intended To Reconsider Greenhouse Gas Standards For Light-Duty Vehicles Produced For Model Years 2022-2025. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “On March 15, 2017, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced that EPA intended to reconsider the final determination, issued on January 12, 2017, that recommended no change to the greenhouse gas standards for light duty vehicles for model years 2022- 2025. EPA announced it woud reconsider that determination in coordination with NHTSA.” [Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 4/11/24]
2017: Automakers Petitioned The Trump Administration For Relief From Fuel Economy Standards. According to Vox, “Car companies disagreed. They complained that these standards were too ambitious, that customers preferred larger crossover SUVs to small, fuel-efficient sedans, and that the midterm evaluation was rushed. So when Trump took office, several automakers and the oil industry petitioned to have the EPA re-assess the regulation.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
2017: The Trump Administration Reduced The Standards By Nearly 32%, More Than The Automakers Had Asked For. According to Vox, “But car companies got more than they bargained for when the EPA announced instead that it was going to hold fuel economy standards at 2020 levels, which would set average fuel economy at 37 miles per gallon. The EPA justified this weaker rule, known as the SAFE rule, on safety grounds. They used the tortured reasoning that newer cars are safer than old ones and that tough fuel-economy rules make new cars more expensive. By weakening fuel-efficiency regulations, drivers can upgrade to newer, safer cars more easily. But leaked emails showed that analysts inside the EPA determined that the revisions would actually lead to more deaths.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
EPA’s Internal Analysis Indicated The Change Would Lead To More Deaths. According to Vox, “The EPA justified this weaker rule, known as the SAFE rule, on safety grounds. They used the tortured reasoning that newer cars are safer than old ones and that tough fuel-economy rules make new cars more expensive. By weakening fuel-efficiency regulations, drivers can upgrade to newer, safer cars more easily. But leaked emails showed that analysts inside the EPA determined that the revisions would actually lead to more deaths.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
The EPA And NHTSA Released And Published Revised Proposed GHG And Fuel Economy Standards. According to the Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program Regulatory Rollback Tracker, “Aug. 2, 2018 EPA and NHTSA release new proposed standards for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy. The agencies propose maintaining the CAFE and CO2 standards applicable in model year 2020 for model years 2021-2026. The agencies propose withdrawing the permission granted to California to set its own greenhouse gas emissions standards, which a dozen other states also use. Aug. 24, 2018 The Federal Register publishes the Trump administration’s proposed fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and light trucks. The comment period is open through October 23, 2018, and people can comment on a wide range of alternatives, including retaining existing CO2 standards and CAFE standards.” [Harvard – Environmental & Energy Law Program, accessed 7/16/20]
Ford, GM, Toyota, Volvo, And 13 Additional Auto Companies Sent Trump Letter Asking For Rules That Complied With California’s Standards. According to the Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program Regulatory Rollback Tracker, “June 6, 2019 Seventeen auto companies, including Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Volvo, send a letter to President Trump requesting vehicle rules that are supported by California to avoid the uncertainty that would result if the federal government adopts rules that will undoubtedly be challenged by California and the section 177 states that follow California’s standards. The same group also sent a letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom, stating that the industry would like to compromise with final rules between the Obama-era standards and the standards proposed under the Trump administration.” [Harvard – Environmental & Energy Law Program, accessed 7/16/20]
July 2019: Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, And BMW Agreed To Stricter Fuel Economy Standards Than The Trump Administration Had Imposed. According to Vox, “First reported by the Washington Post, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) alongside Ford Motor Company, Volkswagen AG, Honda Motor Company Ltd., and BMW of North America agreed to increase vehicle fuel economy of their fleets 3.7 percent year over year between model year 2022 and model year 2026. Meeting this goal with just fuel-efficiency improvements would require car companies to average 51 miles per gallon by 2026 across all of their offerings. But the recent agreement lets automakers meet this target in other ways too, like selling more electric cars and plug-in hybrids. And while the agreement is only with California, the benchmarks are determined based on a car company’s national fleet rather than just within the state, which gives carmakers more flexibility. […] Faced with the prospect of different sets of rules across the country with changes hinging on the uncertain outcome of long, drawn-out litigation, some car companies decided to establish a backchannel with California to see if they could reach an agreement of their own. ‘They came to us, actually,’ said David Clegern, a spokesperson for CARB. ‘My understanding is that they basically were to the point where they needed some kind of signal to provide some certainty for their planning.’ The big concern for companies is that cars take years to develop. The sedans, coupes, crossovers, and hatchbacks of the next decade are already on the drawing board, but they can’t go much further without designers knowing the mileage rules that will be in place several years in advance. That’s why coming to an agreement with one of the strictest states for emissions in the country right now works in favor of manufacturers. […] Another factor is that these companies have a global presence. In other parts of the world, vehicles are facing more stringent fuel-efficiency regulations as concerns about health and climate change mount. Many car companies would rather build their offerings to similar standards than precisely tailoring their vehicles to different emissions standards in different countries. There is also a growing appetite for electric vehicles and stricter fuel-economy rules give companies a stronger incentive to promote zero-emission cars and trucks. The recent deal between CARB and the four automakers has the added assurance that fuel economy rules won’t suddenly ramp up. ‘If there is a Democratic administration that comes in 2020 and wants to reinstate the Obama rules, in California we will hold them to this deal,’ Clegern said.” [Vox, 7/30/19]
September 2019: Trump’s Justice Department Launched An Antitrust Investigation Into The Automakers Involved In The Higher Efficiency Deal With California. According to NPR, “The Trump administration says a deal between California and four carmakers to improve fuel efficiency may be illegal. The Justice Department has also launched a probe to see whether it violates antitrust laws. Together, the moves raise the stakes in a months-long standoff over efforts to weaken a key Obama-era climate rule. The administration is moving to roll back fuel economy standards despite resistance from some in the industry. In July, BMW, Ford, Honda and Volkswagen reached a deal with the state to keep improving fuel efficiency even if federal standards are weakened. The antitrust probe seeks to challenge that deal. T.R. Reid, a spokesperson for Ford, said in a statement that the company ‘will cooperate with respect to any inquiry.’ Also at stake is a decades-old waiver that lets California set its own, stricter emissions standards, which a dozen other states also follow. On Friday, the EPA and Department of Transportation sent the California Air Resources Board a two-page notice warning that its deal with the four automakers ‘appears to be inconsistent with Federal law.’ It said that under the Clean Air Act, only the federal government has authority to set tailpipe pollution standards.” [NPR, 9/6/19]
September 2019: The Trump Administration Revoked The Waiver Allowing California To Set Its Own Car Emissions Standards. According to NPR, “The Trump administration has been picking fights with California over environmental regulations recently. Last week the administration said it will revoke a waiver that allows California to set stricter car emission standards. A senior EPA official said the two actions were not linked and that California is the focus now because it represents the largest share of backlogged plans. Even though other states have similar backlogs, the administration has not sent letters to them.” [NPR, 9/24/19]
March 31, 2020: EPA And NHTSA Released Final Rule For Passenger Cars And Light Trucks With Revised CAFÉ And GHG Standards. According to the Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program Regulatory Rollback Tracker, “March 31, 2020 EPA and NHTSA release a final rule, the Safer Affordable Fuel–Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. This final rule contains the revised CAFE and GHG standards which increase in stringency 1.5% each year, down from 5% each year under the Obama-era standards. It is published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2020 and effective on June 29, 2020.” [Harvard – Environmental & Energy Law Program, accessed 7/16/20]
June 29, 2020: Final CAFÉ And GHG Rule Went Into Effect. According to the Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program Regulatory Rollback Tracker, “March 31, 2020 EPA and NHTSA release a final rule, the Safer Affordable Fuel–Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. This final rule contains the revised CAFE and GHG standards which increase in stringency 1.5% each year, down from 5% each year under the Obama-era standards. It is published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2020 and effective on June 29, 2020.” [Harvard – Environmental & Energy Law Program, accessed 7/16/20]
Trump Reduced Requirements To Below Where The Auto Industry Was On Track For Without Any Regulation. According to the Guardian, “The Obama administration required auto companies to make vehicles 4.7% more efficient each year. The Trump administration initially wanted to freeze any progress on fuel efficiency past 2020. But its final rule, written by the EPA and the Department of Transportation, sets an improvement rate of 1.5% per year – or an industry average of 40.4 miles per gallon by 2026. That’s far less than the 2.4% per year by which the industry has said it will increase standards without any regulation. [Guardian, 3/31/20]
Twenty-Three States Alleged In Suit That Trump’s Rollback Would Lead To 2,000 Additional Deaths And 50,000 Cases Of Respiratory Illness Every Year. According to the Guardian, “The rollback has drawn opposition from nearly half of states and a significant portion of the auto industry. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia, representing about half of US residents, sued over the changes. They said weakening the standards would kill about 2,000 more people and cause 50,000 more cases of respiratory illnesses, while making the climate crisis worse.” [Guardian, 3/31/20]
March 2017: Trump Signed An Executive Order Commanding The U.S. Government To Review Its Social Cost Of Carbon Analysis. According to an executive order by President Donald Trump, “Review of Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon, Nitrous Oxide, and Methane for Regulatory Impact Analysis. (a) In order to ensure sound regulatory decision making, it is essential that agencies use estimates of costs and benefits in their regulatory analyses that are based on the best available science and economics.” [Archive - Trump White House Office of the Press Secretary, 3/28/17]
The “Social Cost Of Carbon” Was An Actuarial Estimate Of The Societal Damage Caused By One Ton Of Carbon Dioxide Emitted Into The Atmosphere. According to the Atlantic, “On Tuesday, President Donald Trump will sign an executive order that will demolish his predecessor’s attempts to slow the pace of climate change. […] As part of this change, he will command the U.S. government to revise its ‘social cost of carbon,’ an actuarial estimate of the societal damage wrought by every additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. The social cost of carbon is used to estimate when climate-mitigating policies are a good investment.” [The Atlantic, 3/28/17]
2020 Projection: After The Trump-Ordered Revisions, The Projected Social Cost Of Carbon For The Year 2020 Was Reduced From $50 To A Range Of $1 To $7. A Cut Of 86 To 98% According to the New York Times, “In its rollback proposals, the Trump administration argued that each ton of carbon dioxide emitted by a car or a coal plant in 2020 would only cause around $1 to $7 in economic damages. That’s far lower than the Obama administration’s central estimate, which, after adjusting for inflation, argued that same ton of carbon dioxide would cause roughly $50 in total damages.” [New York Times, 8/23/18]
GAO: Under The Trump Administration, The Federal Government Systematically Manipulated The Model Used To Come Up With The Social Cost Of Carbon, Reducing The Number Used In Regulation By An Average Factor Of Seven. According to the Government Accountability Office, “When assessing the costs and benefits of proposed environmental regulations, federal agencies use estimates of the ‘social cost of carbon’—economic damages from increases in greenhouse gas emissions. According to EPA, these gases stay in the atmosphere long enough to become ‘well mixed’—contributing to global damages regardless of their origin. Current national estimates are based on domestic damages and are about 7 times lower than prior estimates based on global damages. In 2017, the National Academies recommended updating the estimating methods. We recommended that the Office of Management and Budget choose a federal entity to take the lead. According to documents reviewed and interviews with officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the federal government's current social cost of carbon estimates used in conducting regulatory impact analyses are lower than its prior estimates. Although both the prior and current estimates were calculated using the same economic models, two key assumptions used to calculate the current estimates were changed: using (1) domestic rather than global climate change damages (see table) and (2) different discount rates (3 and 7 percent rather than 2.5, 3, and 5 percent). As a result, the current federal estimates, based on domestic climate damages, are about 7 times lower than the prior federal estimates that were based on global damages (when both prior and current estimates are expressed in 2018 U.S. dollars and calculated using a 3 percent discount rate). The federal government has no plans to address the recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for updating the methodologies used to develop the federal estimates of the social cost of carbon. In a January 2017 report, the National Academies made recommendations for updating the methodologies used to estimate the social cost of carbon to ensure federal estimates reflect the best available science. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Circular A-4 provided guidance to federal agencies on how to conduct regulatory analyses, and in 2017 Executive Order 13783 directed agencies to use that guidance when estimating the social cost of carbon; both direct agencies to use the best available science. OMB staff GAO interviewed said the agency does not have specific plans for implementing the recommendations and that no federal agency has responsibility for addressing them. OMB staff told GAO that nonfederal entities are leading research efforts that are responsive to the recommendations, but no federal entity has responsibility for monitoring developments in scientific research or ensuring updated federal estimates consider such developments. However, OMB continues to play a leading role in the federal government's use of the social cost of carbon by having responsibility for the guidance in Circular A-4, which Executive Order 13783 directs agencies to be consistent with in developing their social cost of carbon estimates. By identifying a federal entity to be responsible for addressing the National Academies' recommendations, OMB would have better assurance that agencies use the best available science in their regulatory impact analyses.” [Government Accountability Office, 7/14/20]
| Year Of Emissions | Obama Era Estimate | Estimate After Trump’s Executive Order |
| 2020 | $[1]50 | $7 |
| 2030 | $60 | $8 |
| 2040 | $72 | $9 |
| 2050 | $82 | $11 |
[Government Accountability Office, 7/14/20]
Washington Post: “The Trump Administration Has Decided To Disband The Federal Advisory Panel For The National Climate Assessment, A Group Aimed At Helping Policymakers And Private-Sector Officials Incorporate The Government’s Climate Analysis Into Long-Term Planning.” According to the Washington Post, “The Trump administration has decided to disband the federal advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment, a group aimed at helping policymakers and private-sector officials incorporate the government’s climate analysis into long-term planning. The charter for the 15-person Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment — which includes academics as well as local officials and corporate representatives — expires Sunday. On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s acting administrator, Ben Friedman, informed the committee’s chair that the agency would not renew the panel.” [Washington Post, 8/20/17]
August 7, 2017: The New York Times Published A Leaked Copy Of The National Climate Assessment. According to Forbes, “Out of fear that the recently finished National Climate Assessment will be hidden from public sight, the New York Times published a leaked copy of the report on Monday. The report, which combines 13 federal agencies analysis on climate change in the United States is waiting for approval by the Trump administration.” [Forbes, 8/8/17]
Scientists From 13 Federal Agencies Concluded In A Section Of The National Climate Assessment That Americans Were Feeling The Effects Of Climate Change. According to the New York Times, “The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration. The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited. The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.” [New York Times, 8/7/17]
The Report Found That “Every Corner Of The United States […] Was Touched By Climate Change.” According to the New York Times, “In the United States, the report concludes with ‘very high’ confidence that the number and severity of cool nights have decreased since the 1960s, while the frequency and severity of warm days have increased. Extreme cold waves, it says, are less common since the 1980s, while extreme heat waves are more common. The study examines every corner of the United States and finds that all of it was touched by climate change. The average annual temperature in the United States will continue to rise, the authors write, making recent record-setting years ‘relatively common’ in the near future. It projects increases of 5.0 to 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 to 4.8 degrees Celsius) by the late century, depending on the level of future emissions.” [New York Times, 8/7/17]
The Report Called It “Extremely Likely” That More Than Half Of The Global Mean Temperature Increase Since 1951 Was Linked To Human Influence. According to the New York Times, “Worldwide, the draft report finds it ‘extremely likely’ that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 can be linked to human influence. In the United States, the report concludes with ‘very high’ confidence that the number and severity of cool nights have decreased since the 1960s, while the frequency and severity of warm days have increased. Extreme cold waves, it says, are less common since the 1980s, while extreme heat waves are more common.” [New York Times, 8/7/17]
The Report Predicted A Global Temperature Rise Of 2 Degrees Celsius By The End Of The Century, Which Would Result In Longer Heat Waves, More Intense Rainstorms, And Faster Killing Of Coral Reefs. According to the New York Times, “The report concludes that even if humans immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the world would still feel at least an additional 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit (0.30 degrees Celsius) of warming over this century compared with today. The projected actual rise, scientists say, will be as much as 2 degrees Celsius. A small difference in global temperatures can make a big difference in the climate: The difference between a rise in global temperatures of 1.5 degrees Celsius and one of 2 degrees Celsius, for example, could mean longer heat waves, more intense rainstorms and the faster disintegration of coral reefs.” [New York Times, 8/7/17]
January 2017: Trump Ordered The EPA To Remove The Climate Change Page From Its Website. According to Reuters, “U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the climate change page from its website, two agency employees told Reuters, the latest move by the newly minted leadership to erase ex-President Barack Obama’s climate change initiatives. The employees were notified by EPA officials on Tuesday that the administration had instructed EPA’s communications team to remove the website’s climate change page, which contains links to scientific global warming research, as well as detailed data on emissions. The page could go down as early as Wednesday, the sources said.” [Reuters, 1/24/17]
Trump Administration Replaced Clean Power Plan Website With A Page With Information On An Order To Review The Plan. According to an opinion in The New York Times by Toly Rinberg and Andrew Bergman, “One website that has vanished concerned the Clean Power Plan, President Barack Obama’s effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electric power generation. It was replaced by a single web page containing only information about a presidential order calling for a review of the plan. Months later, the E.P.A. announced that it would seek to repeal the Obama plan. Removing information about the plan’s benefits has made it difficult for citizens to provide informed comments during the repeal process.” [New York Times – Opinion - Rinberg and Bergman, 11/22/17]
January 2017 – November 2017: The Environmental Data And Governance Institute Tracked The Replacement Of Terms Like “Greenhouse Gases,” “Carbon,” And “Climate Change” On The EPA’s Website. According to an opinion in the New York Times by Toly Rinberg and Andrew Bergman, “Since January, our organization, the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, has monitored changes to tens of thousands of web pages across federal agencies. While we haven’t found examples of altered data, it is clear that the administration is intent on making it difficult or impossible to find information on its web pages about climate change. Of all the government websites we’ve been monitoring, the E.P.A.’s has been hit hardest. Terms like ‘greenhouse gases,’ ‘carbon’ and ‘climate change’ have been replaced by vague descriptors like ‘sustainability’ and ‘emissions.’ In addition, web resources about specific regulations have disappeared.” [New York Times – Opinion - Rinberg and Bergman, 11/22/17]
Program Pages, Like That For A Bush-Era Clean Shipping Program, Saw Subtle Removals Of Climate Change Related Terms. According to Time, “Not all of the holes left by the EPA’s scrubbing of climate change are so obvious. Subtle redactions and word choice adjustments are pervasive throughout site. At least one section has been subject to line editing that may escape notice except through a studied comparison. On the page ‘Learn about SmartWay’ – a Bush-era program to make shipping and logistics more environmentally friendly – the EPA used to mention freight transportation’s adverse effects on ‘the environment, public health and climate.’ But the word ‘climate’ has been scrubbed. Similarly, the same page previously described how the growth of freight activity has negatively impacted the environment, resulting in more ‘more greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions’ as well as CO2. All those terms have been erased, leaving only a truism about freight increasing. Likewise, the phrase ‘climate change and air pollutant’ has been wiped and ‘carbon footprint’ was exchanged for, ‘environmental footprint.’ Working to ‘harmonize global carbon accounting methods’ became ‘sustainability accounting methods.’ According to the EDGI’s careful scrutiny, most pages related to the SmartWay program have been subjected to such redactions with ‘climate change’ phrases dropped in favor of ‘more general terms’ that appear to minimize the sense of impending threat.” [Time, 3/1/18]
March 2018: A Search Of The EPA’s Website For The Term “Climate Change” Returned Almost 60 % Fewer Results. According to Time, “And some of the pages simply no longer exist. A search for the term ‘climate change’ on EPA.gov produces just over 5,000 results. It used to produce more than 12,000.” [Time, 3/1/18]
In Addition To The Pages Removed From The EPA’s Website, Similar Scrubbing Of Climate Pages Happened On The Websites For The State Department, Department Of The Interior, And Department of Energy. According to an editorial in the New York Times by Toly Rinberg and Andrew Bergman, “Climate change websites at several other federal agencies have been altered, too. The State Department removed reports containing required emissions projections under international treaty. The Interior Department removed descriptions of its priorities for tackling climate change and its climate-related coordination efforts. And links to websites hosting climate data were removed from the main Department of Energy climate change web page. Fortunately, climate websites at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration appear to have escaped the administration’s meddling and removals. So far.” [New York Times – Opinion - Rinberg and Bergman, 11/22/17]
Under Trump, The National Institute Of Food And Agriculture Dropped The Term “Climate Change” From Its Requests For Applications. According to Politico, “The signals to scientists have been subtle but frequent. For example, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which funnels hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to colleges and universities for food and agriculture research has dropped the term ‘climate change’ from its requests for applications from scientists. Instead, the agency uses ‘climate variability and change.’” [Politico, 8/5/19]
March 2018: Secretary Of The Interior Zinke Testified Before The Senate That His Department Had Not Changed Any Scientific Documents. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, “Zinke testified at a Senate committee hearing last month that the Interior Department has not changed any scientific documents. ‘There is no incident, no incident at all that I know that we ever changed a comma on a document itself. Now we may have on a press release,’ Zinke told the senators. ‘And I challenge you, any member, to find a document that we’ve actually changed on a report.’” [Center for Investigative Reporting, 4/2/18]
April 2018: Across 18 Different Versions Of The National Parks Service’s Analysis Of The Risk From Rising Seas To National Parks, Trump Administration Officials Removed Every Reference To “Humans’ Role In Causing Climate Change.” According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, “National Park Service officials have deleted every mention of humans’ role in causing climate change in drafts of a long-awaited report on sea level rise and storm surge, contradicting Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s vow to Congress that his department is not censoring science. The research for the first time projects the risks from rising seas and flooding at 118 coastal national park sites, including the National Mall, the original Jamestown settlement and the Wright Brothers National Memorial. Originally drafted in the summer of 2016 yet still not released to the public, the National Park Service report is intended to inform officials and the public about how to protect park resources and visitors from climate change. Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting obtained and analyzed 18 versions of the scientific report. In changes dated Feb. 6, a park service official crossed out the word ‘anthropogenic,’ the term for people’s impact on nature, in five places. Three references to ‘human activities’ causing climate change also were removed.” [Center for Investigative Reporting, 4/2/18]
While Maria Caffrey Had Been Promised Additional Work With The National Parks Service Following Her Report On The Risks To National Parks From Rising Sea Levels, Her Funding Was Pulled After The Study’s Controversial Release. According to Mother Jones, “For several years, climate change scientist Maria Caffrey led a trailblazing study outlining the risks of rising seas at national parks. She’s now out of a job. Caffrey, who worked under a contract with the National Park Service, resisted efforts by federal officials to remove all references to human causes of climate change in her scientific report. After Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting reported the attempts at censorship, Democratic members of Congress called for an investigation, and in May, the park service released the report with all the references reinstated. Caffrey’s contract expired Friday. Park service officials told her last year they would hire her for a new project. But they notified her Thursday that no funding is available for the work.” [Mother Jones, 2/17/19]
July 2019: After The White House Blocked His Inclusion Of Data And Evidence On The National Security Threats Of Climate Change, State Department Senior Intelligence Analyst Rod Schoonover Resigned. According to the Wall Street Journal, “A State Department intelligence analyst has resigned in protest after the White House blocked portions of his written testimony to a congressional panel to exclude data and evidence on climate change and its threat to national security, State Department officials said. The analyst, Rod Schoonover, prepared a written report citing peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and intelligence reports, which conclude that climate change could have wide-ranging national security impacts by contributing to increased humanitarian crises, competition for resources and risk of political instability.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/10/19]
June 2019: The White House Blocked More Than Half Of Schoonover’s Testimony, Which Consisted Of “Evidence And Data” On The National Security Threats Posed By Climate Change. According to the Wall Street Journal, “White House officials allowed him to speak to the panel in June, but prohibited him from including evidence and data supporting his assessments in written testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last month, according to one of the officials familiar with the matter. That cut his written testimony by half, the official said. Ultimately, he didn’t submit a written statement to the panel, unlike two other government witnesses at the hearing.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/10/19]
August 2019: A Two-Decade Veteran Of The USDA’s Agricultural Research Service Resigned After The Trump Administration Buried His Research On The Devastating Nutritional Consequences Of Climate Change On The 600 Million People Who Rely On Rice. According to Politico, “One of the nation’s leading climate change scientists is quitting the Agriculture Department in protest over the Trump administration’s efforts to bury his groundbreaking study about how rice is losing nutrients because of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Lewis Ziska, a 62-year-old plant physiologist who’s worked at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service for more than two decades, told POLITICO he was alarmed when department officials not only questioned the findings of the study — which raised serious concerns for the 600 million people who depend on rice for most of their calories — but also tried to minimize media coverage of the paper, which was published in the journal Science Advances last year.” [Politico, 8/5/19]
VIDEO: 2016: Trump Said Would Only Do Offshore Drilling If The People In The Affected Area Agreed. According to WECT, “REPORTER: A lot of people around here are concerned about offshore drilling where do you stand? Is it part of your energy program? TRUMP: Well I'll tell you what we want to make sure the people around here because those are the ones that have to really with put up it, we that want to make sure they're OK with it. And I know there is a lot of anxiety from people in the surrounding area and I would want to make sure that they're OK with it. That would be very important to me.” [WECT, 8/10/16]
April 2017: Trump Instructed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke To Review The Obama Administration’s Plan For Where Offshore Drilling Could And Could Not Take Place Between 2017 And 2022. According to the New York Times, “Among other directives, the order instructs Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review an Obama administration plan that delineated where offshore drilling could and could not take place between 2017 to 2022. The plan put the entire southeast Atlantic coast and large portions of the Arctic Ocean off limits to drilling.” [New York Times, 4/27/17]
January 4, 2018: Trump Opened Nearly All Coastal Waters To Offshore Drilling. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration said Thursday it would allow new offshore oil and gas drilling in nearly all United States coastal waters, giving energy companies access to leases off California for the first time in decades and opening more than a billion acres in the Arctic and along the Eastern Seaboard.” [New York Times, 1/4/18]
January 9, 2018: Interior Secretary Zinke Exempted Florida After Lobbying From Trump Ally Florida Governor Rick Scott. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration’s move to open nearly all of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling would give energy companies access to more than a billion acres off the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts. Mr. Trump’s plan upends a decades-long effort to balance the nation’s energy needs with protecting ocean ecosystems, and it is meeting stiff resistance from governors up and down the coasts. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announced on Jan. 9 that Florida was off the table after meeting the state’s governor, Rick Scott. But 10 days later, a senior Interior official appeared to contradict Mr. Zinke, telling a congressional hearing that the secretary’s decision was not final.” [New York Times, 1/23/18]
June 2020: Trump’s Department Of The Interior Planned To Announce Plans For Drilling Off The Coast Of Florida “After The November 3 Election But Before Trump’s Current Term Ends.” According to Politico, “The Trump administration is preparing to open the door to oil and gas drilling off Florida’s coast — but will wait until after the November election to avoid blowback in a swing state whose waters both parties have long considered sacrosanct, according to four people familiar with the plan. Drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would fulfill a long-sought goal of energy companies, giving them access to potentially billions of barrels of oil that have been off-limits since the federal government withdrew leases it had sold in 1985. […] ‘Whatever is decided is expected to come out within two to three weeks of the election,’ said one person who has had recent discussions with Interior officials about the issue and who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity. The eastern Gulf is the ‘golden trophy’ for the industry because it could be producing oil within 10 years using existing infrastructure from the Gulf’s western portion, the person said. A second person who recently spoke to Interior officials said they had predicted that the plan would probably come out after the Nov. 3 election but before Trump’s current term ends in January. The timing was driven partly by the sensitive politics in Florida, but also because Interior Secretary David Bernhardt was conducting reviews to ensure it was legally defensible, the person said.” [Politico, 6/10/20]
Trump Signed An Executive Order Instructing The Secretary Of The Interior To “Amend Or Withdraw” An Obama Administration Moratorium On Federal Coal Leasing. According to an executive order titled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth signed by President Donald Trump, “The Secretary of the Interior shall take all steps necessary and appropriate to amend or withdraw Secretary's Order 3338 dated January 15, 2016 (Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to Modernize the Federal Coal Program), and to lift any and all moratoria on Federal land coal leasing activities related to Order 3338. The Secretary shall commence Federal coal leasing activities consistent with all applicable laws and regulations.” [Archive - Trump White House Office of the Press Secretary, 3/28/17]
Lifting The Moratorium On Federal Coal-Mining Leases Wouldn’t Impact The Coal Industry Until “Years After” Trump Left Office. According to Bloomberg, “President Donald Trump is expected to lift a moratorium on federal coal-mining leases Tuesday -- and it probably won’t do the industry much good until years after he’s left office. That’s because U.S. coal companies including Peabody Energy Corp. won’t be looking to secure new reserves of the fossil fuel on federal land for years, especially as mining slows amid the sector’s worst downturn in generations.” [Bloomberg, 3/28/17]
Coal Executives And Analysts Said Lifting The Coal Moratorium Would Not Be Enough To Overcome Market Forces To Put Coal Miners Back To Work. According to Bloomberg, “President Donald Trump is expected to lift a moratorium on federal coal-mining leases Tuesday -- and it probably won’t do the industry much good until years after he’s left office. […] While Trump’s rolling back a policy that may have loomed over coal producers in coming decades, it’s going to take more to overcome market forces and raise demand for the fossil fuel to a level that’ll put miners back to work, coal executives and analysts say.” [Bloomberg, 3/28/17]
2019: The Trump Administration Has Opened Up More Than Ten Million Acres Of Public Land For Mining. According to the Center for American Progress, “But Zinke, Trump, and Bernhardt have overturned far more acres of mineral withdrawals than they have protected. Other sensitive landscapes that the administration has opened to mining include: nearly 10 million acres of sage-grouse habitat; the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness; and lands bordering Joshua Tree and Death Valley national parks in the California desert.” [Center for American Progress, 3/20/19]
Brookings: “Federal Coal Generates 13 Percent Of U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions.” According to Brookings, “Given that the use of federal coal generates 13 percent of U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, federal coal policy also has important climate change implications.” [Brookings, 12/8/16]
Trump Proclaimed That His Energy Plan For A Second Term Was “Drill Baby Drill.” According to the Houston Chronicle, “If it’s a fight over who's more bullish on oil, Donald Trump made clear Thursday in Houston that he is not ceding an inch to top GOP rivals Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. At an engineering firm that specializes in offshore drilling, the former president doubled down on his commitment to Texas oil — an appeal aimed less at voters and more at a donor base in the state that has been funneling donations to DeSantis and Haley over the last few months. ‘On Day 1 of our new administration we will end Biden’s nation-wrecking war on American energy,’ Trump said with drilling equipment flanking him and a giant American flag hanging in the background. ‘Drill baby drill, that’s what we’re going to do.’” [Houston Chronicle, 11/2/23]
Trump Claimed He Would Increase Oil Drilling On Public Land And Offer Tax Breaks To Fossil Fuel Producers. According to the Associated Press, “Under the mantra ‘DRILL, BABY, DRILL,’ he says he would ramp up oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers. He would roll back Biden administration efforts to encourage the adoption of electric cars and reverse proposed new pollution limits that would require at least 54% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030.” [Associated Press, 11/12/23]
Trump Called For Tax Breaks For Fossil Fuel Producers And To Eliminate Incentives For Clean Energy Projects. According to ABC News, “Trump has vowed to slash U.S. energy and electricity costs by ramping up domestic production of fossil fuels. On the campaign trail, Trump has summed up this approach with a slogan: ‘Drill, baby, drill.’ The agenda includes tax breaks for producers of oil, gas and coal. Trump also plans to do away with much of the $369 billion Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate measure in U.S. history, which includes incentives for clean energy projects and the purchase of electric vehicles, the Financial Times reported in November. Under Biden, meanwhile, the U.S. set a record for oil output this year. As of December, the country was on pace to increase its supply of oil by an average of 1.4 million barrels per day, according to the International Energy Agency, a government group. Blinder, of Princeton, questioned a potential expansion in production of fossil fuels, which make up a key driver of climate change. Economic policy should strike a balance between productivity and environmental concerns, Blinder said. ‘One basic principle of taxation is you want to tax bad things and subsidize at least some good things,’ he added. ‘I find it hard to see that with providing tax breaks for fossil fuels.’” [ABC News, 1/6/24]
Trump Claimed He Would Eliminate Energy Saving Regulations. According to the Associated Press, “And again, he says, he will exit the Paris Climate Accords, end wind subsidies and eliminate regulations imposed and proposed by the Biden admiration targeting incandescent lightbulbs, gas stoves, dishwashers and shower heads.” [Associated Press, 11/12/23]
ARPA-E “Conducts Research On Promising New Energy Technologies.” According to Bloomberg Law, “The bill also would boost funding of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which conducts research on promising new energy technologies, by $10 million in fiscal 2021. President Trump proposed zeroing out funding in fiscal 2021, but Congress has responded by steadily increasing the budget for ARPA-E, which received $425 million in current year spending.” [Bloomberg Law, 7/6/20]
FY 2018: Trump Proposed Eliminating The Department Of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency. According to the White House FY 2018 Budget Major Savings And Reforms, “The Budget proposes to eliminate the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program because the private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive energy technology research and development.” [Trump White House, 5/23/17]
FY 2019: Trump Again Proposed Eliminating The Department Of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency. According to the White House FY 2019 Budget Major Savings And Reforms, “The Budget proposes to eliminate the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program, recognizing the private sector's primary role in taking risks to commercialize breakthrough energy technologies with real market potential.” [Trump White House, 2/12/18]
FY 2020: Trump Proposed Eliminating The Department Of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency For The Third Year In A Row. According to the White House FY 2020 Budget Major Savings And Reforms, “The Budget proposes to eliminate the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program, recognizing the private sector's primary role in taking risks to commercialize breakthrough energy technologies with real market potential.” [Trump White House, 3/18/19]
FY 2021: Trump Proposed Eliminating The Department Of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency. According to the White House, FY 2021 Budget Major Savings And Reforms “The Budget proposes to eliminate the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program, recognizing the private sector's primary role in taking risks to commercialize breakthrough energy technologies with real market potential.” [Trump White House, 2/10/20]
The Department Of Energy Applied Energy Programs Administered Research Into Energy Efficiency, Renewables, Nuclear, Fossil Fuels And Energy Grid Modernization. According to Representative Marcy Kaptur, “We come together this afternoon to discuss DOE’s applied energy programs, which cover energy efficiency, electric grid modernization and security, and energy technologies such as renewables, nuclear, and fossil. The energy future of our country depends on DOE’s vital investments to achieve breakthroughs to solve our toughest energy challenges. These programs are at the epicenter of those efforts, and past successes of these programs have increased energy security and resulted in the United States becoming a net energy exporter, as shown from the Energy Information Administration.” [Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur Press Release, 3/3/20]
FY 2018: Trump Proposed Cutting The Department Of Energy’s Applied Energy Programs By 57%. According to the White House FY 2018 Budget – Major Savings and Reforms, “Reduction: Applied Energy Programs Department Of Energy” saw a proposed reduction of “-2,154” million from the “2017 CR” of “3,760” million. -2,154/3760=57.2%. [Trump White House, 5/23/17]
FY 2019: Trump Proposed Cutting The Department Of Energy’s Applied Energy Programs By 55%. According to the White House FY 2019 Budget – Major Savings and Reforms, “Reduction: Applied Energy Programs Department Of Energy” saw a proposed reduction of “-2,080” million from the “2017 Enacted” of “3,776” million. -2,080/3,776=55%. [Trump White House, 2/12/18]
FY 2020: Trump Proposed Cutting The Department Of Energy’s Applied Energy Programs By More Than 51%. According to the White House FY 2020 Budget – Major Savings and Reforms, “Reduction: Applied Energy Programs Department Of Energy” saw a proposed reduction of “-2,423” million from the “2019 Enacted” of “4,687” million. -2,423/4,687=51.6%. [Trump White House, 03/18/19, 36]
FY 2021: Trump Proposed Cutting The Department Of Energy’s Applied Energy Programs More Than 46%. According to the White House FY 2021 Budget – Major Savings and Reforms, “Reduction: Applied Energy Programs Department Of Energy” saw a proposed reduction of “-2,486” million from the “2020 enacted” of “5,312” -2,486/5,312=46.7%. [Trump White House, 2/10/20]
2017: Solar Company Suniva, Trying To Stop Their Own Bankruptcy, Lobbied The Trump Administration For Tariff Protection Despite Opposition From Broader U.S. Solar Industry. According to E&E News, “Last April, Suniva dusted off a little-used law, Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, and asked the Trump administration to impose tariffs on solar imports around the globe. The company had gone into bankruptcy a month earlier and claimed that only trade walls could save jobs in a manufacturing industry that was born in the U.S. but had been nearly wiped out by competition from inexpensive Chinese imports. The balance of the solar industry fought the proposal fiercely, warning that raising prices on those imports would cause steep job losses in the 260,000-person solar industry, which is mostly made up of project managers and installers. […] The tariffs that President Trump announced in January — a 30 percent tariff that declines every year and 2.5 gigawatts of solar cells imported without penalty — were less stringent than Suniva asked for. Meanwhile, the solar industry has seen a wave of canceled projects but so far not the 88,000-person drop in employment that SEIA feared.” [E&E News, 5/4/18]
January 2018: Trump Imposed A 30% Tariff On Imports Of Solar Equipment. According to Time, “In the biggest blow he’s dealt to the renewable energy industry yet, President Donald Trump decided on Monday to slap tariffs on imported solar panels. The U.S. will impose duties of as much as 30 percent on solar equipment made abroad, a move that threatens to handicap a $28 billion industry that relies on parts made abroad for 80 percent of its supply. Just the mere threat of tariffs has shaken solar developers in recent months, with some hoarding panels and others stalling projects in anticipation of higher costs. The Solar Energy Industries Association has projected tens of thousands of job losses in a sector that employed 260,000.” [Time, 1/22/18]
The Solar Energy Industries Association Projected A Loss Of 23,000 American Jobs, Almost 9% Of All American Solar Jobs. According to Gizmodo, “While the tariff was pitched as a way to boost U.S. jobs, especially in manufacturing, many experts think it will do just the opposite. Chinese imports have helped the U.S. solar industry grow remarkably fast over the last decade, and the workforce includes many people not involved with the actual manufacture of panels, but employed in everything from installation to sales. The Solar Energy Industries Association said the decision ‘will cause the loss of roughly 23,000 American jobs this year, including many in manufacturing, and it will result in the delay or cancellation of billions of dollars in solar investments.’ In 2016, there were over 260,000 solar workers in the U.S., according to the Solar Jobs Census, with about 1 in every 50 news jobs added in the country created by the solar industry.” [Gizmodo, 1/23/20]
$2.5 Billion Worth Of Solar Projects Were Frozen Or Canceled Due To Trump’s Solar Tariffs. According to Reuters, “President Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters. That’s more than double the about $1 billion in new spending plans announced by firms building or expanding U.S. solar panel factories to take advantage of the tax on imports.” [Reuters, 6/7/18]
Analysis By The Solar Energy Industries Association Indicated Twice The Initial Number Of Jobs Lost To Trump’s Tariffs On Imported Solar Panels: 62,000. According to The Hill, “Tariffs on solar panels implemented under President Trump have significantly harmed the U.S. solar industry, according to a new analysis released Tuesday. More than 62,000 jobs and nearly $19 billion in new private sector investment has been lost due to the 2018 tariffs Trump placed on solar imports, according to the study by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). The number of jobs lost is nearly double the toll the SEIA first estimated when Trump announced the tariffs. The $28 billion U.S. solar industry has been significantly affected by the tariffs. The industry gets 80 percent of its solar panel products from imports, largely from China.” [The Hill, 12/3/19]
The Lost Investment In Solar Power Due To Trump’s Tariffs Cost The Grid 10.5 Gigawatts Or Enough To Power 1.8 Million Homes. According to Reuters, “The industry’s top trade group, the U.S. Solar Industries Association (SEIA), said the lost investment equated to 10.5 gigawatts in missed solar energy installations, enough to power about 1.8 million homes.” [Reuters, 12/3/19]
Trump’s Solar Tariffs Increased U.S. Emissions By The Equivalent To Adding 5.5 Million Cars. According to The Hill, “The group additionally estimated that the tariffs cost the U.S. more than $10.5 million per day in unrealized economic activity. From a climate perspective, the SEIA also estimated that reduced solar panel deployment activity in the U.S., stemming from the tariffs, would increase emissions equivalent to 5.5 million cars.” [The Hill, 12/3/19]
Trump Fought The Scottish Government For A Decade In Court To Stop Wind Farm Off The Coast Of His Aberdeen, Scotland Golf Resort. According to CNN, “Trump fought for a decade against the Scottish government's effort to install a renewable energy wind farm off the coast of Aberdeen, which could be seen from his eponymous golf course there. He called them a "horrible idea" and "ugly" in court documents. The case of Trump vs. the Scottish windmills went to the UK's Supreme Court in 2015, according to Quartz. The wind farm was completed in 2018. In February, adding insult to injury, Trump's golf course was ordered to pay the Scottish government's legal bills from the case, according to the BBC.” [CNN, 12/23/19]
November, 2019: Trump Lied That Windmills Reduced Property Values By 75%. According to CNN, “As to whether windmills affect property values, the evidence is mixed. This was the subject of a CNN Fact Check when Trump made the claim last month, saying windmills drove property values down 65%. Trump's claim wasn't supported by the facts when he said 65% and it's supported even less now that he's upped the damage to 75%.” [CNN, 12/23/19]
Trump Lied That Windmills Were “All Made In China And Germany […] We Don’t Make Them Here, Essentially” But Companies Made Windmills In Colorado, Arkansas, And North Dakota. According to CNN, “Trump: ‘No, wind's not so good and you have no idea how expensive it is to make those things. They're all made in China and Germany, by the way, just in case you, we don't make them here, essentially.’ The wind industry has been on a tear. The fastest-growing occupation in the US in 2017 was wind turbine technician, although it's still a small part of the economy, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More than 105,000 Americans are employed in the wind industry across all 50 states, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group. The industry is reliant on imports from ‘a wide array’ of countries, according to the Energy Department. According to the Energy Information Agency, US wind turbine manufacturing is dominated by three companies: General Electric, Siemens and Vestas. But each of these has both international and domestic manufacturing facilities. Vestas, a Danish company, for instance, has a large plant in Pueblo, Colorado. GE makes turbines in China, but also in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Grand Forks, North Dakota.” [CNN, 12/23/19]
VIDEO: March 2019: At A Rally In Michigan, Trump Claimed People Whose Houses Were Supplied By Wind Power Would Lose Electricity When There Is No Wind. According to a Trump rally via Twitter, “TRUMP: If Hillary got in... you'd be doing wind. Windmills. Weeeeeng. And if it doesn't blow, you can forget about television for that night. 'Darling, I want to watch television.' 'I'm sorry! The wind isn't blowing.' I know a lot about wind.” [Trump Rally via Twitter, @atrupar, 3/28/19]
VIDEO: Trump Complained That Windmills Could Be Blown Up Easily, “You Can Blow Up The Windmills...Bong Bong Bong. Bing. That's The End Of That Windmill. According to Trump at a fundraiser in Utica, NY via YouTube, “TRUMP: Think of coal as indestructible. You can blow up a pipeline. You can blow up the windmills. You know the windmills. Bong bong bong being that's the end of that windmill. If the birds don't kill it first the birds could kill it first. They kill so many birds You. look underneath some of those windmills. It's like a killing field for the birds. But you know that's what they were going to do. They were going to windmills. And you know don't worry about when the wind doesn't blow. So what happens when the wind doesn't blow? Well then we have a problem. OK good. They were putting them at risk with it in a much wind too. And it's a subsidy. You need a subsidy for windmills. You need a subsidy. Who wants to have energy. We need a subsidy. [Trump Fundraiser - Utica, NY, 8/13/18]
April 2019: Trump Claimed That Wind Turbines Caused Cancer With Their Noise. According to Vox, “President Donald Trump is a climate change denier and renewable energy hater. That much has been clear for a long time. But during a speech on Tuesday evening, he took the flawed arguments he’s been making against wind energy to new levels of absurdity. Addressing the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Trump claimed that sounds made by wind turbines cause cancer. ‘If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value,’ Trump said. ‘And they say the noise causes cancer. You tell me that one, okay? Rerrrr rerrrr!’” [Vox, 4/3/19]
December 2019: Trump Claimed Wind Turbines Emit “Tremendous Fumes.” According to Vox, “Trump began his comments about wind energy on an incoherent note, saying, ‘I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much.’ Things didn’t get much better from there. He continued: ‘But they’re manufactured tremendous — if you’re into this — tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint — fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything — right?’” [Vox, 12/23/19]
Trump Described The Shift To Electric Vehicles As A “Hit Job” On Michigan. According to the Detroit News, “Trump argued that regardless of the outcome of the strike, the bigger threat to employees was the shift to electric cars and trucks, which he described as a ‘hit job’ on Michigan and Detroit.” [Detroit News, 9/27/23]
Trump: “You Can Be Loyal To American Labor Or You Can Be Loyal To The Environmental Lunatics.” According to the Detroit News, “‘You can be loyal to American labor or you can be loyal to the environmental lunatics,’ Trump said at one point. ‘But you can’t really be loyal to both. It’s one or the other.’” [Detroit News, 9/27/23]
Automakers Warned That Trump’s Plan To Overhaul U.S. Policy On Electric Vehicles Would Cause Sales To Stumble. According to the London Financial Times, “Carmakers have warned that tearing up the Inflation Reduction Act will hurt the growth of US electric vehicle sales, after former president Donald Trump’s advisers revealed plans to gut the country’s cornerstone green legislation if he is elected. The IRA is intended to drive EV manufacturing in the US by offering consumer incentives if they buy battery cars where certain parts are sourced from the US or its trading partners. The measure, which is intended to dissuade consumers from buying Chinese technology, has sparked tens of billions of dollars of investment into the US from battery and auto groups. But in November, Trump’s senior campaign officials and advisers told the Financial Times that he was planning to overhaul US policy during a second term. As the growth of EV sales slow, and carmakers pull back on some spending plans, industry executives now fear that without the incentives EV sales will stumble.” [London Financial Times, 1/4/24]
Washington Post: Trump Made 1,065 False Of Misleading Claims Related To The Environment While In Office. [Washington Post, 1/20/21]
VIDEO: Trump: “I Am Not A Believer In Climate Change.” According to New Day, “TRUMP: I am not a believer in climate change. Now it's gone global warming and climate change, and now they call it, actually, extreme weather. That's the new one, because weather seems to be a little more extreme.” [New Day, 9/24/15]
AUDIO: Trump On Climate Change: “It’s Weather. You’re Going To Have Bad Weather.” According to the Palin Update, “TRUMP: ISIS is a big problem and nuclear is a big problem because of the power of the weapons. That’s going to be your climate change if we’re not careful. The real climate change is going to be nuclear climate change if we’re not smart and tough and very, very careful because that’s a big danger and that’s a real danger. I think Obama just said that the biggest threat that we have on the planet today is climate change, and a lot of people are saying, did he really say that? We have people chopping off heads and he’s talking about climate change. I call it weather. I call it weather. You know, the weather changes. You look back and they were calling it global cooling and global warming and global everything, but if you look back and the biggest tornados were in the 1890s, the biggest hurricanes were in the 1860s and 1870s. It’s weather. You’re going to have bad weather. So often I watch the evening newscasts and every time there is a rainstorm some place, and then they wonder why they don’t do well, they say, ‘It’s raining here and it’s raining there,’ usually leading the program. I call it weather. Maybe there’s a little bit of change, I don’t happen to believe it’s manmade.” [Palin Update, 7/27/15]
November 2012: Trump Claimed Climate Change Was Created By The Chinese To Disadvantage American Manufacturing. According to Trump via Twitter, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” [Twitter, @realDonaldTrump, 11/6/12]
VIDEO: Trump Called Climate Change A “Hoax.” According to Fox News, “TRUMP: This whole global warming hoax – you know, one of the great things, and if you notice, they call them tourists. All of those people on the ship in Antarctica that got caught in the ice. You know the ice is massive there. They started out in an area that didn’t have so much ice and then within in a period of four or five days they had miles and miles, they were surrounded by it. Well, they were global warming scientists. Now, the media is not saying that. They’re calling them tourists because it doesn’t play well to say they’re global warming scientists. They were going there to study global warming. This winter is brutal. I’m in New York right now and the airports were closed, everything is closed. It’s freezing. We haven’t had a winter like this in a long time.” [Fox and Friends, 1/6/14]
VIDEO: Trump Suggested That Climate Change Was A Hoax Perpetrated By Scientists. According to CNN New Day “TRUMP: You have scientists -- I don't know if you remember a number of years ago in Europe, the scientists were passing around e-mails and notes to each other talking about what a hoax it is. CAMEROTA: Well, look. I know what you're referring to, the East Anglia situation where they -- a couple of scientists... TRUMP: It was terrible. It was absolutely terrible.” [CNN New Day, 9/24/15]
VIDEO: After Dismissing Criticism Of His November 2012 Claim That Climate Change Was A Hoax By Claiming He Was Joking, Trump Said That Climate Change Was Benefiting China To The Detriment Of America. According to Fox News, “TRUMP: Well I think that climate change is just a very expensive form of tax, a lot of people are making a lot of money [inaudible] I’ve received many environmental awards, and I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China—obviously I joke, but this is done for the benefit of China because China doesn’t do anything to help climate change, they burn everything that you could burn, they couldn’t care less [inaudible] their standards are nothing, but in the meantime they can undercut us on price so it’s very hard on our business. We want clean air, we want clean water, and I feel very strongly about that.” [Fox News, 1/18/16]
VIDEO: Trump Claimed Moving To Renewable Energy Will Cause The Us To “Close Down Half Of Our Factories.” According to Townhall, “TRUMP: It's not a strong form of energy. I understand alternate, and I understand every former energy very well. I understand when I understand solar you don't have the power you don't have the capacity. We would have to close down half of our factories. What they are doing. And basically that's a Bernie Sanders deal. He's gone crazier than Bernie Sanders... The problem is you're not going to have any factories because the capacity is not there.” [Townhall, 7/14/20]
Trump Vastly Understated The Amount Of Sea Level Rise That Has Taken Place And Was Projected To Take Place. According to the BBC, “CLAIM: ‘The biggest threat is not global warming, where the ocean is going to rise one eighth of an inch over the next 400 years.’ VERDICT: According to climate projections, Trump is vastly underestimating the rise in sea levels. In the decade 2014-2023, global average sea levels rose by an average of nearly 4.8mm per year (0.19in), according to the World Meteorological Organization. That increase is already greater than the one eighth of an inch (0.13in) that Mr Trump predicts will happen over the next 400 years. The magnitude of future rises is difficult to predict, because it is uncertain how quickly ice-sheets will melt, and future warming will depend on greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated a likely range of 0.28 to 1.01m of global sea-level rise by 2100 - although higher rises can’t be ruled out.” [BBC, 8/13/24]
Trump Falsely Claimed “The Ocean Will Rise One-Eighth Of An Inch Over The Next 200 To 300 Years.” According to PolitiFact, “Announcing his run to retake the White House, former President Donald Trump made a claim that seemed to ridicule expert projections about climate change. Trump juxtaposed two global threats — nuclear war and rising sea levels — in his Nov. 15 announcement at his waterside Mar-a-Lago club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida.[…] Trump said, "They say the ocean will rise one-eighth of an inch over the next 200 to 300 years.’ Experts predict rises in sea level many times larger than what Trump claimed. One federal agency said that U.S. sea level in 2100 is projected to be at least 2 feet higher on average than it was in 2000, and that’s with greenhouse gas emissions reduced ‘significantly.’ Trump’s statement is false and ridiculous — Pants on Fire!” [PolitiFact, 11/17/22]
Trump Lied That He “Had The Best Environmental Numbers Ever.” According to the Associated Press, “TRUMP, touting his environmental record, said that ‘during my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever’ and that he supports ‘immaculate’ air and water. THE FACTS: That’s far from the whole story. During his presidency, Trump rolled back some provisions of the Clean Water Act, eased regulations on coal, oil and gas companies and pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. When wildfires struck California in 2020, Trump dismissed the scientific consensus that climate change had played a role. Trump also dismissed scientists’ warnings about climate change and routinely proposed deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency. Those reductions were blocked by Democratic and Republican lawmakers.” [Associated Press, 6/28/24]
Trump Selected Rex Tillerson To Be His Secretary Of State. According to the New York Times, “President-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday officially selected Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, to be his secretary of state. In saying he will nominate Mr. Tillerson, the president-elect is dismissing bipartisan concerns that the globe-trotting leader of an energy giant has a too-cozy relationship with Vladimir V. Putin, the president of Russia.” [New York Times, 12/12/16]
2006 - 2016: Tillerson Served As Chairman And CEO Of Exxon Mobil. According to Forbes, “The chief executive of the world’s largest publicly traded international oil and gas company may also be the next Secretary of State of the United States. In December 2016 Tillerson was tapped by President-elect Donald Trump as his nominee for the position; a potentially contentious Senate confirmation awaits. Tillerson started his career at ExxonMobil in 1975 and became CEO in 2006. The Texas oilman has close ties to the most powerful person on FORBES’ list, Vladimir Putin, whom Tillerson knew in the 1990s, when he led Exxon’s interests in Russia. Under Tillerson’s leadership, Exxon has recovered from a steep drop in its stock price last year.” [Forbes, accessed 10/3/23]
Between 1998 And 2007, Exxon Mobil Spent $15.8 Million Funding Groups That Rejected “Scientific Evidence Of Human Contribution To Global Warming.” According to Newsday, “Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest gasoline maker, spent $15.8 million since 1998 funding groups that reject scientific evidence of a human contribution to global warming, according to a report yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Exxon gave to 43 organizations promoting ‘uncertainties’ about global warming to delay U.S. action to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, the report said.” [Newsday, 1/4/07]
2006: Sens. Snowe And Rockefeller Sent A Letter To Tillerson Demanding That Exxon Mobil Cease Funding The Competitive Enterprise Institute And Other Global Warming Skeptics. According to the Washington Times, “Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and John D. Rockefeller IV, in a letter to the chairman of ExxonMobil Corp., demanded that the oil giant cease funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other global warming skeptics. ‘In light of the adverse impacts still resulting from your corporation's activities, we must request that ExxonMobil end any further financial assistance or other support to groups or individuals whose public advocacy has contributed to the small, but unfortunately effective, climate change denial myth,’ the two senators said in a letter to Rex W. Tillerson, chairman and chief executive officer of ExxonMobil. The letter was dated Friday.” [Washington Times, 11/2/06]
2006: Union Of Concerned Scientists Report: Among The Organizations Part Of Exxon Mobil’s Campaign To Create “Uncertainties” About Global Warming Was A Group Started By Phillip Morris To Sow Confusion Over The Dangers Of Second-Hand Smoke. According to Newsday, “Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest gasoline maker, spent $15.8 million since 1998 funding groups that reject scientific evidence of a human contribution to global warming, according to a report yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Exxon gave to 43 organizations promoting ‘uncertainties’ about global warming to delay U.S. action to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, the report said. Exxon also successfully recommended climate advisers for the Bush administration, which rejected a global treaty to cut greenhouse gases in 2001 and instead called for voluntary reductions. Among the biggest recipients of funding from Exxon were the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which advocates limited government regulation of business, and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a group started by Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris in 1993 to sow confusion over the dangers of second-hand smoke, the report said.” [Newsday, 1/4/07]
2008: Exxon Mobil Pledged To Discontinue Contributions To Climate Change Denial Groups. According to the Guardian, “The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that ‘divert attention’ from the need to find new sources of clean energy. The move comes ahead of the firm’s annual meeting today in Dallas, at which prominent shareholders including the Rockefeller family will urge ExxonMobil to take the problem of climate change more seriously. Green campaigners accuse the company of funding a ‘climate denial industry’ over the last decade, with $23m (£11.5m) handed over to groups that play down the risks of burning fossil fuels. The ExxonMobil report says: ‘In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.’” [Guardian, 5/28/08]
Exxon Mobil Continued To Fund Climate Change Denial Research Between 2008 And 2010 Despite A Pledge To End The Practice In 2008. According to the Guardian, “At the time the oil company was the main funder of dozens of front groups and researchers rubbishing any link between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change - or denying climate change was occurring at all. Among the recipients was Willie Soon, the Harvard-Smithsonian researcher who received more than $1m (£0.7m) from industry, according to documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings. In a report released on the eve of their 2008 annual general meeting, the oil company pledged to stop funding groups that promote climate denial. However, the company continued funding Soon for three more years. The documents show that Exxon gave Soon an additional $76,106 from 2008 to 2010, despite claiming to have stopped.” [Guardian, 3/27/15]
Trump Nominated Scott Pruitt To Run The Environmental Protection Agency. According to the New York Times, “President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, signaling Mr. Trump’s determination to dismantle President Obama’s efforts to counter climate change — and much of the E.P.A. itself.” [New York Times, 12/7/16]
In Pruitt’s 14 Lawsuits Against The EPA As Attorney General, 13 Of Them Were Joined By Energy And Industry Companies That Contributed To His Campaign Committees. According to the New York Times, “It was one of a series of instances in which Mr. Pruitt put cooperation with industry before confrontation as he sought to blunt the impact of federal environmental policies in his state — against oil, gas, agriculture and other interests. His antipathy to federal regulation — he sued the Environmental Protection Agency 14 times — in many ways defined his tenure as Oklahoma’s attorney general. […] Mr. Pruitt separately filed a series of lawsuits against the federal government, challenging regulations intended to reduce the discharge of poisonous mercury from coal-burning power plants, carbon dioxide blamed for climate change and other emissions that federal authorities argued were causing unsightly haze in Oklahoma’s air. In total, Mr. Pruitt filed 14 lawsuits challenging federal environmental regulations. In 13 of those cases, the co-parties included companies that had contributed money to Mr. Pruitt or to Pruitt-affiliated political campaign committees.” [New York Times, 1/14/17]
In 2014, Pruitt Joined With The Domestic Energy Producers Alliance To Sue The Interior Department For Plans To Add Animals Including The Lesser Prairie Chicken To The Endangered Species List. According to the New York Times, “But Mr. Pruitt’s ties with industry are clear. One of his closest partners has been Harold G. Hamm, the billionaire chief executive of Continental Resources, which is among the biggest oil and gas drilling companies in both Oklahoma and North Dakota. This year, Mr. Pruitt joined with a group aligned with Mr. Hamm to sue the Interior Department over its plan to consider adding animals such as the lesser prairie chicken to the endangered species list, a move that Mr. Hamm has said could knock out ‘some of the most promising land for oil and gas leases in the country.’” [New York Times, 12/6/14]
Pruitt, Oklahoma Gas And Electric, And Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers Sued The EPA To The Supreme Court Over Its Regional Haze Rule. According to the Oklahoman, “OG&E, along with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and Oklahoma Industrial Energy Consumers, fought the EPA's plan for regional haze compliance, taking their legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court last year refused to review an appellate decision from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pruitt's office, which represents consumers in utility cases, did not present any witnesses during the environmental case hearing earlier this year. The attorney general waited until testimony was almost over before recommending a dismissal of OG&E's Mustang modernization plan. Pruitt said in a statement Wednesday that capital projects such as OG&E's Mustang modernization should only be considered outside a normal rate case in extraordinary circumstances.’ As the attention now turns toward the rate-making application, my office will continue to ensure the efforts to comply with federal mandates forced upon Oklahoma utilities are done so in the least possible cost to the consumer while considering reliability, safety and security,’ Pruitt said in the statement. ‘My office has fought and will continue to fight the costly environmental mandates handed down by the federal government that are increasing utility costs for Oklahoma consumer and industry.’” [Oklahoman, 12/2/15]
June 2017: Time: Pruitt Spearheaded An Effort To “Critique Mainstream Climate Science” Within The EPA. According to Time, “Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is reportedly launching a program within the department to ‘critique’ mainstream climate science, a senior administration official said, according to reports. The initiative, reportedly set to be coordinated by government-recruited experts, will attempt to offer a ‘back-and-forth critique’ of climate science utilizing military-style exercises that identify potential vulnerabilities in field operations, according to environmental trade publication E&E News.” [Time, 6/30/17]
At A Board Meeting For A Coal Industry Lobby, Pruitt Announced His “Red Team-Blue Team” Initiative To Challenge Climate Science. According to the New York Times, “Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, plans to convene a team of researchers to test the scientific premise of human-caused climate change, he told coal industry executives on Thursday. Speaking at a board meeting of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a lobbying group for coal companies and their industry allies, Mr. Pruitt said his staff had already begun preparations for a ‘red team-blue team’ exercise to challenge mainstream climate science, according to two people who attended the meeting but were not authorized to speak about it publicly.” [New York Times, 6/30/17]
John Kelly Stopped The EPA From Holding Red Team-Blue Team Debates Despite Trump Enthusiasm For The Idea. According to the New York Times, “John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, has killed an effort by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to stage public debates challenging climate change science, according to three people familiar with the deliberations, thwarting a plan that had intrigued President Trump even as it set off alarm bells among his top advisers. The idea of publicly critiquing climate change on the national stage has been a notable theme for Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the E.P.A. For nearly a year he has championed the notion of holding military-style exercises known as red team, blue team debates, possibly to be broadcast live, to question the validity of climate change. Mr. Pruitt has spoken personally with Mr. Trump about the idea, and the president expressed enthusiasm for it, according to people familiar with the conversations.” [New York Times, 3/9/18]
January – July 2017: Pruitt’s EPA Saw A Reduction In Polluter Civil Penalties Of 60% Relative To The First Six Months Of The Obama Administration. According to the Environmental Integrity Project, “So far, the Trump Administration’s EPA has been lighter on the pocketbooks of polluters than previous administrations, collecting 60 percent less in civil penalties than previous administrations had recovered from environmental violators on average by the end of July in their first year after taking office. Federal records reviewed by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) also show a significant drop in the number of environmental enforcement lawsuits filed against companies for breaking pollution control laws, compared to comparable periods in the Obama, Bush, and Clinton Administrations. From President Trump’s first day in office through the end of July, the U.S. Department of Justice collected a total of $12 million in civil penalties as part of 26 civil lawsuits filed against companies for breaking pollution control laws. This was less than the $36 million in penalties in 34 cases in Obama’s first January through July; $30 million in 31 cases under the same period during George W. Bush’s administration; and $25 million in 45 cases during Clinton’s first half year, according to EIP’s report, ‘Environmental Enforcement Under President Trump.’” [Environmental Integrity Project, 8/10/17]
January 2017 – July 2017: Pruitt’s EPA Forced Companies To Spend 85% Less Than During The Same Period Of The Obama Administration On Pollution Control Equipment To Comply With Environmental Regulations. According to the Environmental Integrity Project, “Beyond civil penalties, EPA also estimates the value of another outcome of environmental lawsuits: ‘injunctive relief.’ This means how much money violators will spend to install and maintain the pollution control equipment needed to reduce emissions and comply with environmental standards. This equipment includes scrubbers to remove sulfur dioxide from smokestacks or treatment systems that decontaminate wastewater before it is released to a river. EPA has been making these injunctive relief cost estimates for the last two decades. The value of court-approved ‘injunctive relief’ has fallen to $197 million during President Trump’s first January through July, compared to $1.3 billion under the same period of time at the beginning of President Obama’s first term, and $710 million under the first half year of George W. Bush’s first term, federal records show.” [Environmental Integrity Project, 8/10/17]
Trump Nominated Former Energy Lobbyist Andrew Wheeler To Run The Environmental Protection Agency. According to Reuters, “U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday nominated acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler to run the agency permanently, the White House said, placing a former energy lobbyist at the helm of the nation’s top environmental regulator.” [Reuters, 1/9/19]
Wheeler Was A Coal Lobbyist Whose Client List Included Murray Energy, America’s Largest Coal Company. According to CNN, “President Donald Trump is considering coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler for deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the agency's No. 2 position, a source close to the deliberations said Friday. Wheeler is currently a principal with Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting, and co-leader of the law firm's energy and natural resources practice. His online biography says he represents clients before Congress, the Department of Energy, the EPA and the Department of Transportation. The firm's clients include Murray Energy, which bills itself as ‘the largest coal mining company in America.’” [CNN, 3/17/17]
Wheeler Opposed The Paris Agreement On Behalf Of Murray Energy. According to Politico, “Amid a discussion about the possibility that the U.S. may not withdraw from the Paris agreement, Murray lobbyist Andrew Wheeler underscored the company's opposition to the accord.” [Politico, 3/30/17]
The New Republic: “Wheeler Has Said He Doesn’t Believe The Federal Government Should Regulate The Greenhouse Gases That Cause Global Warming.” According to the New Republic, “Like Pruitt, Wheeler has said he doesn’t believe the federal government should regulate the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. ‘I think the only reason it’s important to reduce greenhouse gases is to increase efficiency,’ he said in 2004.” [New Republic, 3/17/17]
Trump Named Rick Perry To Run The Department Of Energy. According to ABC News, “President-elect Donald Trump named former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as his choice for secretary of energy in a statement this morning. Praising Perry's gubernatorial experience, Trump said Perry would ‘do an amazing job’ in his new role. ‘As the governor of Texas, Rick Perry created a business climate that produced millions of new jobs and lower energy prices in his state, and he will bring that same approach to our entire country as secretary of energy,’ Trump said in a statement released by his transition team.” [ABC News, 12/14/16]
Perry Wanted To Eliminate The Department Of Energy. According to the Los Angeles Times, “It was Perry’s disdain for the Energy department -- or, rather, his inability to articulate it -- that helped sink his bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. ‘It's three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and, the, uh, what's the third one there?’ Perry said during a primary season debate. ‘Commerce, Education and the uh, the uh...’ He continued. ‘The third agency of government I would do away with -- the Education, uh the, uh, Commerce, and let's see -- I can't... the third one, I can't. I'm sorry ... oops.’ It was one of the more awkward moments in the history of presidential politics. Later in the debate, Perry finally remembered the agency he was reaching for was Energy.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/13/16]
While Perry Forgot One Of The Three Departments He Wanted To Eliminate From The Federal Government During A GOP Primary Debate, He Responded Enthusiastically To The Idea Of Eliminating The EPA. According to CBS News, “In a cringe-worthy moment during Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry couldn’t remember the third federal agency he has pledged to eliminate. Perry was discussing his jobs plan and his flat tax plan when he said: ‘And I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the... what’s the third one there? Let’s see.’ Perry then paused and there was audible laughter in the room. Texas Rep. Ron Paul then chimed in ‘You need five,’ to which Perry responded, ‘Oh, five, OK. So Commerce, Education, and the...’ Romney then suggested, ‘EPA?’ to which Perry responded, ‘EPA, there you go, no...’ with laughter from the candidate and the audience. Moderator John Harwood from CNBC then asked, ‘Seriously, is the EPA the one you were talking about?’ ‘No, sir, no, sir. We were talking about the agencies of government -- the EPA needs to be rebuilt. There’s no doubt about that,’ Perry responded. ‘But you can’t name the third one?’ Harwood asked. ‘The third agency of government I would, I would do away with, the Education, the... Commerce and, let’s see,’ Perry said, as his brain freeze continued.” [CBS News, 11/10/11]
Perry Referred To The “So-Called Science” Of Climate Change And Claimed That “We Have Been Experiencing A Cooling Trend.” According to Mother Jones, “In his 2010 book, Fed Up!, he wrote that ‘we have been experiencing a cooling trend’ and railed against Democrats who have embraced ‘so-called science’ on climate change. He complained the Department of Defense had devoted three whole pages to the subject in an official threat-assessment report.” [Mother Jones, 12/13/16]
Perry’s Administration Censored References To Human Induced Climate Change In An Environmental Report On Climate Change In Texas’ Galveston Bay. According to Mother Jones, “Rick Perry takes Texas pride in being a climate change denier—and his administration acts accordingly. Top environmental officials under Perry have gutted a recent report on sea level rise in Galveston Bay, removing all mentions of climate change. For the past decade, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which is run by Perry political appointees, including famed global warming denier Bryan Shaw, has contracted with the Houston Advanced Research Center to produce regular reports on the state of the Bay. But when HARC submitted its most recent State of the Bay publication to the commission earlier this year, officials decided they couldn't accept a report that said climate change is caused by human activity and is causing the sea level to rise. Top officials at the commission proceeded to edit the paper to censor its references to human-induced climate change or future projections on how much the bay will rise.” [Mother Jones, 10/12/11]
Trump Nominated Former Oil Lobbyist David Bernhardt For Interior Secretary. According to the New York Times, “President Trump on Monday announced he would nominate David Bernhardt, a former oil lobbyist and current deputy chief of the Interior Department, to succeed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who resigned amid allegations of ethical missteps. In a message on Twitter, Mr. Trump wrote, ‘David has done a fantastic job from the day he arrived, and we look forward to having his nomination officially confirmed!’” [New York Times, 2/4/19]
Bernhardt Was One Of The Bush Administration’s Point People For Its Push To Expand Oil Drilling On Federal Lands. According to Mother Jones, “Now: Bernhardt has been one of the administration's point people in the push to promote oil drilling from the Arctic to Wyoming; in 2001, he helped prepare congressional testimony on Arctic drilling for Interior Secretary Gale Norton that dismissed warnings from the government's own scientists. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that runs the wildlife refuge, had reported that drilling could have a negative impact on the region's caribou herds. According to published reports, Bernhardt rewrote the FWS findings, and Norton, in answering questions before a Senate panel, misrepresented the research, relying instead on information from a report funded by BP Exploration.” [Mother Jones, September/October 2003]
Bernhardt Worked On Expanding Drilling In ANWR. According to the Denver Post, “Bernhardt has already worked on some of the most contentious environmental issues of President Bush’s tenure, including snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ‘He was extremely good at congressional strategy,’ Norton said. ‘And he was a good lawyer.’ His work hasn’t always won him friends in the environmental community. Kristen Brengel of The Wilderness Society said Bernhardt was dismissive of protecting lesser-known public lands in Colorado, such as Vermillion Basin in Moffat County.” [Denver Post, 12/4/06]
Bernhardt Issued An Interpretation Of The Endangered Species Act That Limited Enforcement To Areas Only In Which Endangered Species Were Struggling While Ignoring Areas Where Species Were Healthy Or Already Died Out. According to the Associated Press, “Tired of losing lawsuits brought by conservation groups, the Bush administration issued a new interpretation of the Endangered Species Act Friday that would allow it to protect plants and animals only in areas where they are struggling to survive, while ignoring places they are healthy or have already died out. The opinion by U.S. Department of Interior Solicitor David Bernhardt was posted with no formal announcement on the department’s web site. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall, contacted in Washington, D.C., said the new policy would allow them to focus on protecting species in areas where they are in trouble, rather than having to list a species over its entire range. That would make it easier to take the gray wolf off the federal threatened species list in Montana and Idaho, leaving it to the states to manage. And it would leave it listed in Wyoming, where the state has yet to adopt a protection plan that satisfies the federal government, Hall said. ‘I think this will be a good tool from a biological standpoint,’ he said. ‘I think a lot of species might be affected in the future, especially species that are wideranging.’ But Kieran Suckling, policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, said the new policy was a sophisticated effort by the Bush administration to gut the Endangered species Act by ignoring the loss of species from their historical range, making it easier to deny endangered species listings.” [Associated Press, 3/19/07]
Cobalt Energy International Was An Exploration And Production Company With Operations Focused In The Gulf Of Mexico. According to Forbes, “Cobalt International Energy, Inc. is an independent, oil-focused exploration and production company with a salt prospect inventory in the deepwater of the United States Gulf of Mexico and offshore Angola and Gabon in West Africa. The Company's prospects are focuses on oil.” [Forbes, accessed 4/11/24]
2010 – 2014: Bernhardt Was A Registered Lobbyist For Cobalt International Energy. According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, Bernhardt was a registered lobbyist for Cobalt International Energy from 2010 to 2014. [Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, United States Senate, accessed, 5/2/17]
Bernhardt Lobbied Congress On “All Legislation Regarding The Leasing And Development Of Energy On The Outer Continental Shelf” For Cobalt International Energy. According to the U.S. House of Representatives Lobbying Database, Bernhardt lobbied congress on “all legislation regarding the leasing and development of energy on the outer continental shelf” for Cobalt International Energy. [U.S. House of Representatives Lobbying Database, accessed 4/11/24]
2012 – 2013: Bernhardt Was A Registered Lobbyist For Samson Resources Company. According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, Bernhardt was a registered lobbyist for Samson Resources Company from 2012-2013. [Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, United States Senate, accessed 5/2/17]
In 2012, Lobbyists For Oil And Gas, Including Samson Resources, Helped Soften A Federal Rule Governing Fracking On Federally Owned Land. According to the New York Times, “The Obama administration on Friday issued a proposed rule governing hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on public lands that will for the first time require disclosure of the chemicals used in the process. But in a significant concession to the oil industry, companies will have to reveal the composition of fluids only after they have completed drilling — a sharp change from the government’s original proposal, which would have required disclosure of the chemicals 30 days before a well could be started. The pullback on the rule followed a series of meetings at the White House after the original regulation was proposed in February. Lobbyists representing oil industry trade associations and individual major producers like ExxonMobil, XTO Energy, Apache, Samson Resources and Anadarko Petroleum met with officials of the Office of Management and Budget, who reworked the rule to address industry concerns about overlapping state regulations and the cost of compliance.” [New York Times, 5/4/12]
Bernhardt Lobbied The U.S. Senate And Department Of The Interior On “Issues Regarding The Development Of Energy On Federal Lands” For The Samson Resources Company. According to the U.S. House of Representatives Lobbying Database, Bernhardt lobbied the U.S. Senate and Department of the Interior on “issues regarding the development of energy on federal lands” for the Samson Resources Company. [U.S. House of Representatives Lobbying Database, 4/19/12]
**Bernhardt Was A Registered Lobbyist For Access Industries From 2011 To 2017.**According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, Bernhardt was a registered lobbyist for Access Industries from 2011 to 2017. [Lobbying Disclosure Act Database, United States Senate, accessed, 5/2/17]
Access Industries, Inc. Is An Industrial Conglomerate That Operates In Natural Resources And Chemicals, Media And Telecommunications, Technology And E-Commerce, And Real Estate Sectors Worldwide. According to Bloomberg, “Access Industries, Inc. is an industrial conglomerate that operates in natural resources and chemicals, media and telecommunications, technology and e-commerce, and real estate sectors worldwide. It manufactures cement and paper products; provides logistics services; retails fashion products; develops drugs; produces domestic oil and natural gas, as well as polymers, petrochemicals, and fuels; operates conversion refineries; produces aluminum; engages in the production, financing, sale, and distribution of films; provides mobile broadband Internet access, VoIP telephony, and machine-to-machine solutions for consumers and businesses; and produces television series.” [Bloomberg, 5/3/17]
2014 Analysis Of The Projected Impact Of Heat Waves Caused By Climate Change On The Eastern United States Saw An Estimated Average Of 2,379 More Deaths Per Year By The Late 2050s. According to Jianyong Wu, Ying Zhou, Yang Gao, Joshua S. Fu, Brent A. Johnson, Cheng Huang, Young-Ming Kim, and Yang Liu in Environmental Health Perspectives, “Background: Climate change is anticipated to influence heat-related mortality in the future. However, estimates of excess mortality attributable to future heat waves are subject to large uncertainties and have not been projected under the latest greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Objectives: We estimated future heat wave mortality in the eastern United States (approximately 1,700 counties) under two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and investigated sources of uncertainty. Methods: Using dynamically downscaled hourly temperature projections for 2057–2059, we projected heat wave days that were defined using four heat wave metrics and estimated the excess mortality attributable to them. We apportioned the sources of uncertainty in excess mortality estimates using a variance-decomposition method. Results: Estimates suggest that excess mortality attributable to heat waves in the eastern United States would result in 200–7,807 deaths/year (mean 2,379 deaths/year) in 2057–2059. Average excess mortality projections under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios were 1,403 and 3,556 deaths/year, respectively. Excess mortality would be relatively high in the southern states and eastern coastal areas (excluding Maine). The major sources of uncertainty were the relative risk estimates for mortality on heat wave versus non–heat wave days, the RCP scenarios, and the heat wave definitions. Conclusions: Mortality risks from future heat waves may be an order of magnitude higher than the mortality risks reported in 2002–2004, with thousands of heat wave–related deaths per year in the study area projected under the RCP8.5 scenario. Substantial spatial variability in county-level heat mortality estimates suggests that effective mitigation and adaptation measures should be developed based on spatially resolved data.” [Environmental Health Perspectives – Wu, Zhou, Gao, Fu, Johnson, Huang, Kim, and Liu, 1/1/14]
Climate Change Increases The Risk Of Gastrointestinal Illness As Well As Nervous And Respiratory Illness. According to the Environment Protection Agency, “People can become ill if exposed to contaminated drinking or recreational water. Climate change increases the risk of illness through increasing temperature, more frequent heavy rains and runoff, and the effects of storms. Health impacts may include gastrointestinal illness like diarrhea, effects on the body's nervous and respiratory systems, or liver and kidney damage.” [Environment Protection Agency, accessed 2/21/17]
Climate Change Models Have Predicted That An Increase In Global Temperatures Will Lead To A Higher Risk Of Drought, High Intensity Storms Including Cyclones, Wetter Monsoons, And More Mid-Latitude Storms. According to NASA, “Climate change may not be responsible for the recent skyrocketing cost of natural disasters, but it is very likely that it will impact future catastrophes. Climate models provide a glimpse of the future, and while they do not agree on all of the details, most models predict a few general trends. First, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will probably boost temperatures over most land surfaces, though the exact change will vary regionally. More uncertain—but possible—outcomes of an increase in global temperatures include increased risk of drought and increased intensity of storms, including tropical cyclones with higher wind speeds, a wetter Asian monsoon, and, possibly, more intense mid-latitude storms.” [NASA, accessed 2/22/17]
Researchers Have Found That Climate Change Will Make Hurricanes More Intense. According to the Washington Post, “Researchers now think that a warming climate, by heating the oceans, will indeed make hurricanes more intense (on average), even though it may not increase their overall numbers (in fact, those may decrease). These storms will also dump more damaging rain in the future, as the atmosphere holds more water vapor on a warming planet.” [Washington Post, 10/6/16]
The Government Accountability Office Said That Trump’s Border Wall Harmed The Environment And Disregarded Native American Cultural Sites. According to Politico, “The border wall championed by President Donald Trump harmed the environment and trampled on Native American cultural sites, according to a report released on Thursday by the Government Accountability Office. The 450 miles of barrier constructed during Trump’s time in office — one of his highest-profile actions — proceeded by waiving or disregarding environmental and historic preservation laws. But it’s now clear the wall interfered with endangered species, diverted water sources and caused other environmental damage, the federal watchdog said.” [Politico, 9/7/23]
Vehicle Barriers That Were Changed To Pedestrian Barriers Made Migration For Endangered Species More Difficult According to Politico, “The report found that vehicle barriers in remote areas were changed to pedestrian barriers, which makes migration more difficult, including for endangered species like wolves, ocelots and the Sonoran pronghorn, an antelope-like animal.” [Politico, 9/7/23]
Construction Of The Border Wall Exacerbated Flooding And Threatened Water Levels For Endangered Fish. According to Politico, “Construction of the border wall disrupted water flow during heavy rain events, exacerbating flooding, GAO found. Contractors also drained groundwater in San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, which has in turn drained some ponds and threatened water levels in others that contain endangered fish.” [Politico, 9/7/23]
2018: Trump Tower Chicago Sued For Violating Environmental Laws That Could Result In A $12 Million Fine. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “In 2018, the Illinois attorney general’s office filed a lawsuit against the hotel for violating environmental laws. The state agency said that, every day, the owners of the building drew about 20 million gallons of water out of the Chicago River for its cooling system and released the same amount back into the river at a higher temperature — potentially causing harm to fish and other aquatic life. The suit also said the owners of the hotel broke the law by failing to renew a permit for the water discharge after it expired in 2017. The lawsuit could leave the hotel responsible for up to $12 million in fines — $10,000 for each day it was in violation.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 8/30/23]
2021: A Judge Ruled That Trump Tower Chicago Was Liable For Violating State Environmental Laws For Using Water From The Chicago River Without A Permit. According to the Washington Post, “An Illinois judge has found former president Donald Trump’s Chicago hotel liable for violating state environmental laws, because the hotel is sucking in Chicago River water to cool its air-conditioning systems without a valid permit. That ruling, from Cook County Circuit Court Judge Sophia Hall, stems from a lawsuit that the Illinois attorney general’s office filed against Trump’s hotel in 2018. The attorney general’s office said the Trump International Hotel, a glass tower on the city’s downtown riverfront, sucks in more than 19 million gallons of river water a day — and returns the water, warmer, to the river. The Trump hotel had obtained a permit for this system, but missed a 2017 deadline to renew it. Because of that, the attorney general’s office said, the permit expired and the hotel has been in violation of the law for more than three years. In her ruling, released Friday, the judge agreed that Trump’s hotel had violated the law.” [Washington Post, 2/5/21]
The Illinois Attorney General Alleged That Trump Tower Chicago Under-Reported Their Usage Of Water From The Chicago River By 35%. According to Business Insider, “Since opening in 2009, Trump International Hotel & Tower, Donald Trump's massive glass skyscraper in Chicago, has relied on the city's river to heat and cool its 98 floors. Every day, millions of gallons of river water are pulled into the building and released back as heated effluent in a ceaseless, continual loop. But in a court filing last week, the Illinois attorney general says Trump has been systematically lowballing how much water the tower pulls in and discharges, significantly minimizing the tower's impact on the river's aquatic life, and how many hundreds of thousands of fish, fish larvae and eggs are killed each year. For a full decade, officials say, a simple math error has skewed Trump Tower's monthly reports to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency downward, so that the building only reported 65 percent of its river-water use.” [Business Insider, 9/25/23]
The Illinois Attorney General Alleged That The Trump Organization Failed To Complete Studies On The Impact Of Trump Tower’s Water Usage And Discharge On Aquatic Life. According to the Chicago Tribune, “In response to lawsuits filed five years ago by environmental groups and Raoul’s predecessor, Lisa Madigan, the Trump Organization agreed to complete long-delayed studies of how many fish and other aquatic organisms are pinned against intake screens or killed by sudden changes in pressure and temperature. Not only has the Trump Organization failed to complete the necessary studies, it is significantly underestimating the rate at which river water is sucked into the hotel and condo high-rise, making it appear the practice is less harmful than it actually is, the new lawsuit alleges.” [Chicago Tribune, 9/28/23]
The Illinois EPA Issued Trump Tower Chicago A Violation Notice. According to Business Insider, “The Illinois EPA responded to the apparent discrepancy by issuing Trump Tower a violation notice on August 31. The notice cites the tower's ‘failure to comply with monitoring, sampling, and reporting requirements’ from February 2013 until the present.” [Business Insider, 9/25/23]
When Converting Water Usage From Gallons Per Minute To Gallons Per Day, Trump Engineers Multiplied By 1,000 Even Though There Are 1,440 Minutes In A Day. According to Business Insider, “Here's the math error: Trump's meters measure the river water circulating through the building in gallons per minute. But in converting gallons per minute into gallons per day, which is the measure that the state requires, Trump engineers have been multiplying the per-minute volume by 1,000, the AG alleges. Trouble is, there are 1,440 minutes in a day, not 1,000. It's ‘gobbledygook,’ the state's expert ecologist, who discovered the apparent discrepancy earlier this year, said in a May deposition when asked what he thought of Trump Tower's flow-rate calculations.” [Business Insider, 9/25/23]
Trump Tower Chicago No Longer Stood By Their Previous Reports Following An Audit. According to Business Insider, “The building's management, 401 N. Wabash Venture – an LLC owned by the Trump Organization, in turn owned by Trump – is now backing off the accuracy of a decade's worth of math. Tower management has retained two engineering firms to do a ‘lengthy’ audit of its monthly reporting, Trump's lawyers told the state EPA in an August 14 letter included with the AG's latest court filing. ‘401 is not yet able, as of today, to confirm the accuracy of past reports,’ the letter said.” [Business Insider, 9/25/23]