By C.J. Polychroniou
This article was originally published by Truthout
Trump’s Environmental Policies: A Closer Look
In 2020, Noam Chomsky called Donald Trump “the worst criminal in human history” for his environmental actions. Fast forward to now, and many argue that Trump’s second term poses even greater threats to the environment. To explore this, I spoke with James K. Boyce, an expert in economics and environmental policy.
C. J. Polychroniou: Trump’s second-term policies seem more extreme than ever. What drives this approach? Is it just about money or a larger ideological movement against environmentalism?
James K. Boyce: It’s a mix of both. There are short-term financial gains for Trump’s corporate backers. But it’s also about ideology; many supporters see environmental efforts as government overreach. The fossil fuel industry clearly benefits here.
In April 2024, Trump asked oil and gas executives to contribute $1 billion to his campaign, claiming it would be a “deal.” Ultimately, they contributed $75 million. Yet, his administration managed to roll out $18 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels, in addition to existing funds. This shows how corporations gain significantly from his policies.
The ideology behind these decisions resembles a traditional “small government” stance, but it’s complicated. While certain agencies are downsized, the government hands out substantial funds to favored sectors like fossil fuels, creating a state more focused on control than reduction.
Even more alarmingly, the Trump administration has weakened regulations on PFAS chemicals, which are linked to serious health issues. This isn’t due to the chemical industry’s struggles; it’s part of a broader attack on regulations aimed at protecting public health.
Chemical manufacturers in the U.S. currently benefit from low natural gas prices, giving them an edge against European firms. However, U.S. regulations lag behind Europe’s stringent standards, which promote safer chemicals. This might hurt the economy in the long run, as innovation often gets stifled.
The burden of poor environmental regulations tends to fall disproportionately on marginalized communities. This disconnect makes it easier for the administration to roll back protections without facing significant pushback.
Trump has also removed funding for clean energy projects, labeling them as scams while ignoring the evidence of climate risks. Does one person, however powerful, have the ability to halt the shift to renewable energy?
The answer is no. While he can cause setbacks, the renewable energy revolution is unstoppable. Solar and wind power now represent 93% of new electricity generation in the U.S. This momentum is mirrored globally; clean energy drove a quarter of China’s recent economic growth.
Every extra ton of carbon emissions we produce brings more harm than before. Delaying the transition to clean energy will only worsen the situation, leading to more extreme weather and greater costs down the line.
What does this mean for the future of geopolitics in relation to climate change?
We’re at a crossroads. One path leads to global cooperation in tackling climate change, while the other heads toward conflict over dwindling resources on a damaged planet. Whether compassion or cruelty wins will shape the world we live in.
Many Americans are tired of foreign wars, with a Pew Research Center poll in 2019 revealing that 64% of veterans felt the Iraq War was unwarranted. This disillusionment opens up the possibility for more humanitarian policies.
In the face of economic divides, there’s potential for unity among people pushing for a fairer system. Across the globe, many are witnessing the widening gap between the wealthy and the rest. This reality could drive a shift towards policies that prioritize community welfare over selfish interests.
As we weigh our options between fostering belonging or perpetuating cruelty, it’s clear that one path leads to a better future for all. Yet, the outcome remains uncertain. Collective actions today will determine our shared tomorrow.
This article was originally published by Truthout and is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
