The Trump Administration and the Environment — August 2017 Update

Sixteen days into President Trump’s term, I wrote an editorial entitled “What the Trump Presidency Has Meant for the Environment So Far.” We have now surpassed seven months with President Trump in office, and I want to give yet another update on how his administration is handling environmental matters. In my previous post, most of the material I covered had been only ideas that the administration was considering implementing, or ideological positions that the people President Trump had surrounded himself with held. Since that post was published, the Trump Administration has enacted concerning and downright damaging laws, overturned many beneficial laws and regulations already in place, and began restricting and suppressing scientists and scientific research in the government and beyond.

This post will attempt to collect and summarize some of the more damaging and harmful actions taken by the Trump Administration so far with regard to the environment. I want to once again stress that although my blog does not normally venture into the political realm, the environment does not exist within a vacuum. The actions taken by politicians have a tremendous effect on the environment. When concerned with the environment, one cannot help but find themselves concerned with politics as well.

I will be examining the following:

1. President Trump's opinions and ideals about the environment, and his direct actions.
2. Ryan Zinke and his actions at the Department of the Interior.
3. Scott Pruitt and his actions at the Environmental Protection Agency.

President Trump

I’ll begin with President Trump and some “big picture” material. Back in May, President Trump proposed his budget for the fiscal year that begins on October 1, 2017 and lasts until September 30, 2018. Before I highlight some of the relevant sections of the budget, I want to note that this is the proposed budget. The president proposes a budget, and then Congress either passes the budget as is or alters parts of it and then passes the altered budget. Congress has not begun this process of altering or voting on the proposed budget yet, and as such the budget will most likely change (possibly dramatically) before it becomes law. Regardless, the proposed budget gives us citizens an insight into what President Trump and his administration considers important and what they consider unnecessary.

This proposed budget includes dramatic cuts to many environmentally-oriented projects and sectors in the federal government. Here are just a few highlights:

• A proposed 31% cut in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This proposed cut involves removing over 3,200 jobs in the EPA, gutting the funding for the EPA enforcement office (which ensures corporations are following federal environmental regulations), ending programs aimed at cleaning the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay, and a whole lot more. (Source)

• It would cut funding for the Department of Energy, primarily cutting funding for the DOE’s Office of Science which funds research on climate change, biology, and the environment. (Source)

• It would cut funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, most notably to their weather satellite program which helps meteorologists more accurately predict the weather. (Source)

• It would cut $3.1 billion in funding for the National Science Foundation, which helps fund research projects at universities and research facilities all across the United States. This would result in many graduate students and professors being unable to carry out their research. (Source)

As the proposed budget shows, President Trump does not care much for scientific research and protecting the environment. President Trump’s disregard for the environment was further underscored with his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord. The Paris Climate Accord is an international agreement that aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to stymie the rate of anthropogenic climate change. This agreement was originally signed by 195 countries, including the United States. The only countries to not sign the agreement were Syria (due to their preoccupation with the Syrian Civil War) and Nicaragua (who thought the agreement did not go far enough). (Source) However, President Trump announced in early June that the United States would be pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, an unprecedented move that was harshly criticized across the world. (Source) The Paris Climate Accord did not come without concerns, but the vast majority of the world agreed it was a move in the right direction.

A screen capture of this tweet: @realDonaldTrump

President Trump claimed that the Paris Climate Accord placed unfair environmental standards and regulations on the businesses in the United States, harming the economy here in the United States. (Source) The problem is, letting climate change go unchecked will result in more of a negative economic impact than the economic costs associated with attempting to lessen the effects of climate change. Estimating the overall economic impacts of climate change is difficult, but most studies find that the long term (i.e. over the course of 100 years) effects will be harmful to the economy. (Source ) Interestingly, the sections of the United States which voted heavily for Trump, such as the southeast, are often the sections which are predicted to experience the worst economic effects from climate change. (Source) In addition to the economic effects of climate change, the Pentagon considers climate change to pose a significant threat to the security of the United States. (Source) Despite all of this, President Trump does not acknowledge climate change as a threat to our economy, security of our nation, or even as real threat itself. (Source) President Trump has famously, and repeatedly, claimed that anthropogenic climate change is not real, even going as far as to claim climate change was “created by and for the Chinese.” (Source)

President Trump is doing more than refusing to take actions to slow the effects of climate change. He is proposing actions that would actually exacerbate the effects of climate change. President Trump wants to increase the rate of fossil fuel extraction in the United States, including ending the supposed “war on coal.” (Source) The problem is, there is no “war on coal.” Coal mining did not begin dying due to environmental regulations, but instead began dying due to market factors. The automation of the coal mining process, the waning market demand for coal, and the rise of cheaper coal alternatives (such as cheap natural gas) has killed coal. (Source) Coal is not coming back because the changing times have rendered it unwanted and ineffective.

President Trump’s failure to act on climate change is just one example of him failing to plan for the long term, instead only focusing on short term gains at the expense of long term stability and growth for the United States and the world.

Looking down at the United States - Mexico border (in the valley) from the Huachuca Mountains in Arizona.

In addition to actions that would harm the environment on a large scale, President Trump is also taking actions which would cause irreparable harm to the environment on a finer, smaller scale. For example, President Trump’s proposed border wall would permanently damage the wildlife and habitats along the border. A concrete border wall would interrupt animal migration routes, increase desert flooding, and fragment wildlife and plant populations and sensitive habitats. (Source) Normally, projects like this would require an intensive environmental impact assessment, but the Trump administration plans to instead exploit a loophole that would allow the government to bypass environmental laws aimed at mitigating negative impacts. (Source ) If the border wall is funded in the end, this bypassing of environmental laws would allow the Trump administration to go ahead with the project without knowing how the wall would impact the environment, and how to best mitigate those impacts.

The proposed border wall would also directly impact recreation along the border, taking away recreational opportunities from the public and consequently drying up the revenue that such recreation brings to local economies. For example, the border wall is currently planned to travel through the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which is often considered the “crown jewel” of the national wildlife refuge system and is a top international birding destination due to the rarities it attracts. This current plan would result in the border wall completely ending public access to Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge. The national wildlife refuge currently draws 165,000 visitors a year and brings in $463 million a year for the local economy, and the border wall would end this visitation and the money it brings. (Source)

National Parks—like Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park—could find themselves closed down for an unknown period of time if the government shuts down over funding for President Trump's border wall.

The fight for the border wall could also harm environmental recreation across the nation, not just along the border. On August 22, 2017, President Trump threatened to allow the government to shut down if Congress didn’t allot funding for the border wall when it came time to approve the fiscal year budget. (Source) If this government shut down occurs, the national parks (among other areas) in the United States will shut down too. (Source) National park visitation generates over $32 billion a year, and many small communities near national parks are dependent on visitation to the parks. (Source). If the government shuts down for even a few days, this will dry up some of the money flowing into these local economies, harming many communities. The last time the federal government shut down, the National Park Service lost $450,000 a day in revenue and the national economy suffered a $2.4 billion loss in travel spending. (Source)

Is the environmental, recreational, and fiscal cost of a border wall worth it? Not at all. First, the number of illegal immigrants within the US has been stable since 2009. (Source) Second, the vast majority of those currently in the US illegally did not come by illegally crossing the border; instead, the vast majority did so simply by overstaying their legally-obtained visa. (Source) Consequently, regardless of whether you think illegal immigration is a problem, a border wall does not make logical sense to stop the flow, especially at all the costs—from environmental to recreational to fiscal—that such a wall would bring.

Overall, President Trump’s actions and words have shown that he does not base his actions on data and logic. This ideology was recently put into official words by Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s appointed head administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt recently said in an interview that science shouldn’t be used to “dictate policy.” (Source) President Trump has also shown that he does not place any importance on environmental stewardship. This is unacceptable for a president, or anyone in a position of power for that matter.

Ryan Zinke and the

Department of the Interior

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is a federal department whose tasks include managing lands such as National Parks, National Monuments, and Bureau of Land Management lands. The DOI also oversees the management of natural resources on those lands, including who can access and extract those resources, and how they can extract them. The DOI is currently overseen by Secretary Ryan Zinke.

Slickrock as far as the eye can see, with the Escalante River Canyon cutting through the middle. This section of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument might soon be cut from the monument.

Secretary Zinke entered the news in late April when he announced that the Dept. of the Interior would be launching a review of all the national monuments which had been created over the past 20 years and were at least 100,000 acres in size. (Source) The goal of this review was to decide whether any of the national monuments in question should be reduced in size, or even completely eliminated. Unlike National Parks, which are created by Congress, National Monuments are created by presidential power as defined in the 1906 Antiquities Act. (Source) As I mentioned in my previous post, there’s been a push from conservatives to get rid of federal public land, either by ceding the land back to the states or by selling them off to private entities. But public land offers many benefits to the citizens of the US, including recreational opportunities, which in turn bolsters the economies of small towns near the public lands. (Source) Most importantly, these public lands protect many historically and ecologically significant areas of the United States.

On August 24, 2017, the results of the national monuments review were somewhat announced. Thankfully, no national monuments were recommended for elimination. (Source) However, it was recommended that the sizes of three national monuments be reduced. (Source) These three national monuments include Cascade-Siskiyou in Oregon, Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah, and the recently-created Bears Ears in Utah. By how much will these three national monuments be reduced? Well, we currently don’t know; Zinke and the DOI hasn’t made the final review available to the public. (Source) This in itself raises questions; if the review was finalized (as it had to be by August 24), then why wasn’t it released to the public? Why the secrecy?

Regardless, the recommended reductions will likely be significant in size. This is distressing for many reasons. Bears Ears National Monument, for example, was designated by President Obama in 2016 in order to protect over 100,000 Native American archaeological sites, Native American holy land, and land that held ample recreation opportunities. (Source) This area of Utah had long been damaged by unchecked use; illegal off-roading destroyed archaeological sites and damaged natural areas, looters ransacked many of the archaeological sites in search of artifacts to illegally sell, and unmanaged recreation in general degraded the land and archaeological sites. This area needed protection. By designating it as a national monument, law enforcement activity and land management could be better organized and funded, offering a better, more efficient way to protect all of the important features of the land while also facilitating recreation in the area in a less impactful manner.

Grosvenor Arch in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Arizona. Grosvenor Arch is just one of the many places at risk of losing protection.

Hearing that Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was recommended for size reduction was especially sad for me. In 2016, I spent several days exploring Grand Staircase-Escalante. Although I only just scrapped the surface of the national monument, I was blown away by the beauty and the history—both archaeological and geological—of the area. It is something special, and it deserves to be protected. Reducing the size of this American treasure would be nothing less than a travesty.

Reducing the size of our public lands isn’t the only action Zinke and the DOI is taking or attempting to take. Zinke is also directing the DOI to open up public lands for more resource extraction, while simultaneously rolling back regulations intended to protect public lands. For example, on July 25, 2017, Zinke officially proposed axing a law on fracking that was intended to “Ensure that wells are properly constructed to protect water supplies, make certain that the fluids that flow back to the surface as a result of hydraulic fracturing operations are managed in an environmentally responsible way, and provide public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.” (Source) Zinke claimed that this law imposed “burdensome reporting requirements and other unjustified costs on the oil and gas industry.” (Source) That’s right—the profit margins of the oil and gas energy is more important in the eyes of the Trump Administration than ensuring that our water supplies are safely protected.

Zinke has called for increasing offshore drilling. (Source) He has called for increasing coal mining operations on public lands. (Source) He has announced that the government will relax protection for the declining Greater Sage Grouse, a species whose habitat is being destroyed by land and energy development. And why is Zinke relaxing protection for the Greater Sage Grouse? To lower the restrictions on energy development within Greater Sage Grouse habitat, of course. (Source)

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t utilize federal lands in any capacity for natural resource extraction. Some natural resource extractions can be beneficial both for economically and ecologically. One such case involves strategic logging, which can create habitat for species that require young forest habitats. For example, managing forests for oaks and hickories (by logging other species) helps create habitat for the Cerulean Warbler, a species that’s in severe decline. (Source) Another example is the shelterwood cut, which can create successional growth habitats for declining bird species like Prairie Warblers and Yellow-Breasted Chats. (Source)

The problem comes when we place an emphasis on extractions for resources that are either on their way out, or push for extraction methods which are more damaging than beneficial to a given area. Renewable energy is the future, and fossil fuels are the past. Energy use from renewable sources is growing much faster than energy use from fossil fuels. (Source) Although the majority of the energy utilized in the US still comes from fossil fuels, the writing is on the wall. The Trump administration needs to recognize this and begin investing in the future, instead of trying to prolong a dying giant.

In April, Zinke said “I’m a Teddy Roosevelt guy! ... No one loves public land more than I do!” (Source) Teddy Roosevelt would have quite a problem with Zinke’s statement. Zinke’s actions have shown that he values the oil and gas industry much more than the public lands he supposedly loves.

What would Teddy Roosevelt think? One has to look no further than his May 13, 1908 speech at the Conference on the Conservation of Natural Resources: “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils have still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields and obstructing navigation.”

Scott Pruitt and the EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a government agency whose mission is to protect both the environment and American citizens from significant threats, such as pollution or the effects of climate change. Sadly, the EPA under the Trump Administration has been at the forefront of rolling back environmental regulations, disregarding climate change education and action, and suppressing science and scientists. This is no surprise, as Scott Pruitt was selected by President Trump to lead the EPA. Pruitt—who has sued the agency he now leads 14 times—is striving to fundamentally break down any positive environmental actions that the EPA has previously taken, or could currently take. (Source) 

Lake Erie, a large body of navigable water that benefits from environmental regulations like the Clean Water Rule.

Let’s look at just three regulations the EPA is in the process of rolling back. Pruitt proposed that the EPA repeal the Clean Water Rule. (Source) The Clean Water Rule was originally implemented to protect “navigable” waterways from pollutants and other dangers. Pruitt is also attempting to repeal a 2015 rule that regulated the amount of toxic metals power plants could dump into waterways. (Source ) This regulation was essentially aimed at limiting the amount of toxic metals—such as mercury and arsenic—that power plants would routinely dump into rivers and other waterways when expelling wastewater. When asked why the EPA was trying to repeal this rule, Pruitt said “Some of our nation’s largest job producers have objected to this rule.” (Source) Although this regulation would have surely strained the economic bottom line of power plants, the quality of our water is much more important than profit margins. As we saw with Zinke and the DOI, Pruitt and the EPA are placing an emphasis on the profits of corporations rather than the health and safety of us citizens and our environment. Lastly, Pruitt is directing the EPA to rewrite the Clean Power Plan. (Source) The Clean Power Plan was initially created to aid the US in its transition from climate-change inducing fossil fuels to environmentally-friendly renewable energy sources by regulating carbon dioxide emissions and promoting renewable energy sources. Not only would the Clean Power Plan help lessen the effects of climate change by quickening the transition from fossil fuel use to clean energy use, but it was also projected to prevent 90,000 asthma attacks and 3,600 premature deaths a year. (Source)  With this action, Pruitt—and ultimately President Trump—shows us that your health and livelihood mean nothing next to a corporation’s profit margins.

In addition to rolling back important environmental regulations, Pruitt is actively purging scientists from the EPA. Pruitt dismissed most of the EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors, which is a board made up of scientists who are very familiar with environmental sciences. (Source ) This board is dedicated to addressing whether the EPA is acting on sound scientific research. The fear, expressed by those who worked in the EPA, is that Pruitt will now appoint industry lobbyists to the Board of Scientific Counselors, instead of objective scientists. (Source) This fear was only strengthened when a memo that was circulating among Pruitt’s upper-level team was made public. This memo included a list of climate change deniers, with that list being labelled as “climate scientists.” (Source) This list, which was compiled by an outside climate change denier group called the Heartland Institute (Source and Source), is thought to be a list from which Pruitt will choose replacements for the Board of Scientific Counselors and other such committees. If such people are appointed, they will not have the goal of the EPA in mind and will only serve to cause more damage.

Arguably the most concerning of Pruitt’s actions surround his continued denial and fundamental misunderstanding of anthropogenic climate change. Anthropogenic climate change is the biggest threat humanity is facing. Pruitt’s views on climate change are not only flawed, but dangerous for the United States and the world. Initially, he denied climate change was occurring. (Source) Then he changed that view and said that climate change was occurring, which seemed a step in the right direction. (Source)  But then he took a step back and said that humans are not at the root cause of climate change. (Source) And then, in March, he came out and said that he does not think carbon dioxide is the main driver of the current climate change we are seeing (Source). This is all just wrong, and goes against decades of data-driven and rigorously peer-reviewed scientific conclusions. The climate is changing right now, and it’s due primarily to human actions, and the main driver is carbon dioxide which is being released by human actions. (If you have questions or doubts about climate change, please see the following helpful resources which will answer any relevant questions: Resource 1 and Resource 2) It’s incredibly concerning that the head of an agency who mission is to protect us and the environment refuses to acknowledge the facts behind the biggest environmental threat we are facing.

Pruitt is charging ahead with willfully misguided actions on climate change that are driven by his fundamentally flawed views about the subject itself. For example, he is taking direct actions to remove and censor pages about climate change on the EPA website. In late April, under approval by Pruitt, the EPA removed the vast majority of its climate change information. (Source) This action was coupled with a statement on the EPA website that claimed “[The EPA is] currently updating our website to reflect EPA’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt.” (Source) This censorship about climate change has extended to other departments and agencies in the federal government as well. Employees of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), for example, were directed to stop using the term “climate change,” and instead use “weather extremes.” (Source) The National Institute of Health’s website also underwent similar changes, with parts of their website deleting references to “climate change.” (Source)

One of the most problematic aspects of Pruitt’s actions at the EPA involves the extent of all the changes. Much of his actions have been shrouded in secrecy to some capacity, rendering us citizens unaware of the true extent of the damage he is creating, and just how far he has dismantled the EPA. (Source) It is obvious that Pruitt is trying to dismantle the EPA, and this should not come as a surprise. Steve Bannon—President Trump’s former White House Chief Strategist—famously said in a speech that Pruitt and the other cabinet administrators and secretaries “Were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction.” (Source) Although we might not know the true extent of the damage that Pruitt will have caused at the EPA until he leaves office, we at least know that it will be alarmingly significant.

Protecting Our Environment

The troubling times continue. We are only 7 months into President Trump’s term, and the actions we have seen him and his administration take have been overwhelmingly detrimental to the health and future of our environment and our livelihood. These actions—especially the actions with regard to climate change—will harm us and the environment for decades, if not centuries, to come.

People are angry, and for many this anger has led way to despair. We have to be sure to not fall to this despair though—to not fall to defeatism and give up without a fight. We cannot give up and simply throw in the towel when it comes to the fight for protecting our environment.

President Trump says he wants to “Make America Great Again.” His actions, however, have done anything but that. The health of the environment directly affects the health and well-being of you and I, and promoting the destruction of the environment only worsens our future. And yet this is what we see President Trump and his administration doing every day.

We must hold President Trump, his Administration, and the Congress accountable. We must voice our opinions. We must make a stand.

Reach out to your Congressional and State Representatives and Senators, regardless of their political affiliation. Send emails, make phone calls, show up to their offices and town halls. Attend peaceful protests. Pay attention to the news, and stay informed. Get involved at all levels of the government if you can, especially the lower rungs. It is easier to effect change from the bottom up than the top down.

Don’t be silent. Don’t be defeated. Don’t give up.

"To announce there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public" - Theodore Roosevelt