How Trump’s Environmental Policies Will Impact Climate Research: Insights from UT Experts

On January 20, shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump signed 26 executive orders. These included measures aimed at rolling back renewable energy policies and cutting federal climate research.

Fast forward to 2023, and over two-thirds of the research funding at the University of Texas came from federal sources, totaling more than $640 million. This puts the UT System as the second highest in the U.S. for federal research spending.

Ingrid Kolb, the acting secretary of the Department of Energy, announced a funding freeze right after Trump took office. This halt included all research grants and aimed to review projects to ensure they fit the new administration’s goals.

Trump’s administration echoed an earlier proposal to cut funding for 73 federal programs, which targeted key science bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.

Joshua Busby, a professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, believes we might see funding directed towards clean energy projects under the Inflation Reduction Act.

This act boosted the 45Q tax credit to encourage investments in climate solutions like carbon capture and storage. This method involves capturing carbon dioxide emissions directly from sources like factories and storing them securely underground.

Alex Bump, a research associate at the Gulf Coast Carbon Center, noted that the increase in credit sparked bipartisan support for carbon capture efforts. Last year, his team received $5 million to advance carbon capture projects along the Gulf Coast, labeling the approach as a key method to reduce climate risks.

“It’s not always the cheapest solution,” Bump explained. “But it’s versatile enough to be applied to almost any source of carbon dioxide, making it a valuable tool.”

However, the future for projects that are waiting on funding remains unclear due to the freeze.

Bump also pointed out that many people are still unaware of carbon capture technology, which raises questions about its effectiveness and costs. He noted, “This is a debate about funding priorities, but keeping a range of options is a smart way to manage risks.”

Megan Raby, a history professor, highlighted how public perceptions of climate science have evolved. Traditionally, scientists were hesitant to engage in politics for fear of being labeled biased. Today, there’s a broader understanding that human activity is a significant factor in climate change. Despite this, climate research does not always resonate well with policymakers or the public, and denialism persists.

“Scientists have been trained to understand how nature works,” Raby said. “Their role is to convey these findings to the public and the government, who are meant to safeguard societal interests.”