Ballotpedia's Election Analysis
FEDERAL
Battleground elections:
U.S. Senate • U.S. House
STATE
State legislatures • Gubernatorial State Attorney General
LOCAL
Municipal • School boards Local courts • Local measures
PUBLIC POLICY
Budget • Education • Election • Energy • Healthcare • Environment
Terms and Concepts
Partisan Risk

The outcome of the 2016 presidential election stood to impact federal environmental policy, including the future of environmental policies that had been implemented by the Obama administration. Beginning in 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued four major environmental regulations without the approval of Congress: the Clean Power Plan, the Waters of the United States rule, mercury emissions for power plants, and tightened ozone ("smog") standards for states.

Each rule was challenged in federal court by Republican-led states, as well as Republicans and some conservative Democrats in Congress. Two of the four rules—the Clean Power Plan and the federal water rule—were temporarily blocked in federal court pending a determination of the rules' legality. As of November 9, 2016, the two rules were working their way through the federal court system.

Meanwhile, mercury standards for power plants were expected to go into effect absent legislation from Congress or actions by the next presidential administration. The standards were challenged in federal court, but they had survived legal challenges as of November 2016. Tightened ozone ("smog") standards were challenged in court by industry groups.

This page summarizes some of the key environmental policy issues that were debated in 2016, as well as the stances of political parties and the presidential candidates on those issues. In addition, this page identifies relevant state and local ballot measures. Click on the tabs below to learn more.

Major issues[edit]

Ballotpedia identified the following four environmental policy issues in the 2016 election:

Summary[edit]

Much of the debate over environmental policy in the election was centered on the EPA's activities under Barack Obama. Beginning in 2009, the Obama EPA took regulatory action in three areas: climate change, air quality, and water quality. After climate change legislation stalled in the U.S. Senate in 2009, the Obama administration acted administratively under existing federal law to enact climate rules independent of Congress. The result was the Clean Power Plan, a plan to cut carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. The plan was temporarily blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court pending a decision on its legality.

A second regulation that was temporarily blocked by a federal court was the "Waters of the United States" rule. The EPA used its legal authority under the Clean Water Act to expand its regulation of U.S. waters. At least 31 states, led mostly by Republican attorneys general, challenged the rule in federal court.

The EPA's regulatory action on reducing mercury emissions from power plants was slated to go into effect unless Congress or the next presidential administration acted on changing the standards. The mercury standards survived legal challenges at the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans voted to delay the implementation of stronger ozone ("smog") standards, affecting state governments that would be required to meet them.

In general, Democrats supported expanded federal involvement in environmental regulation. They argued that the EPA's environmental rules would produce environmental and health benefits that outweigh their costs. The Obama EPA argued that the health benefits of its mercury and air toxics standards would total between $37 billion and $90 billion each year in the form of fewer premature deaths, heart, and asthma attacks, exceeding the standards' annual cost of $9.6 billion. The EPA asserted that its ground-level ozone standards would produce between $2.9 billion to $5.9 billion in health benefits each year when the standards were fully implemented; the EPA estimated that the standards' costs would total $1.4 billion each year when they were fully implemented. Democrats also favored immediate federal action to reduce greenhouse gasses, arguing that climate change was the most serious environmental challenge facing the world.

In general, Republicans argued that environmental regulation should be left to state governments and private individuals, who should be incentivized to protect the environment through economic growth and private stewardship. Republicans argued that the EPA's regulatory actions since 2009 were beyond environmental and legal justification. Republicans characterized environmental policy under Democrats as "centralized command-and-control regulation" that limited economic growth and produced few environmental benefits. Republicans promised to rescind the EPA's Waters of the United States rule and prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. Republicans also supported a transfer of environmental regulatory responsibilities from the federal government to state governments, arguing that states are better at responding to their environmental issues than the federal government.

The table below shows how each state stood on the three EPA regulatory actions that were challenged in court: the Clean Power Plan, the Waters of the United States rule, and mercury and air toxics standards for power plants. These states either filed or joined lawsuits challenging the regulations or filed petitions in support of the regulations, while other states had not taken an official position.^[1][2][3][4]

Support for and opposition to EPA regulations challenged in federal court (as of November 2016)
State	Clean Power Plan	Waters of the United States rule	Mercury standards
Alabama	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Alaska	No stance	Opposed	Opposed
Arizona	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Arkansas	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
California	Supported	No stance	Supported
Colorado	Opposed	Opposed	No stance
Connecticut	Supported	Supported	Supported
Delaware	Supported	No stance	Supported
Florida	Opposed	Opposed	No stance
Georgia	Opposed	Opposed	No stance
Hawaii	Supported	Supported	No stance
Idaho	No stance	Opposed	Opposed
Illinois	Supported	No stance	Supported
Indiana	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Iowa	Supported	No stance	Split stance
Kansas	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Kentucky	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Louisiana	Opposed	Opposed	No stance
Maine	Supported	No stance	Supported
Maryland	Supported	No stance	Supported
Massachusetts	Supported	Supported	Supported
Michigan	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Minnesota	Supported	No stance	Supported
Mississippi	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Missouri	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Montana	Opposed	Opposed	No stance
Nebraska	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Nevada	No stance	Opposed	No stance
New Hampshire	Supported	No stance	Supported
New Jersey	Opposed	No stance	No stance
New Mexico	Supported	Opposed	Supported
New York	Supported	Supported	Supported
North Carolina	Opposed	Opposed	Supported
North Dakota	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Ohio	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Oklahoma	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Oregon	Supported	Supported	Supported
Pennsylvania	No stance	No stance	No stance
Rhode Island	Supported	No stance	Supported
South Carolina	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
South Dakota	Opposed	Opposed	No stance
Tennessee	No stance	Opposed	No stance
Texas	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Utah	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Vermont	Supported	Supported	Supported
Virginia	Supported	No stance	No stance
Washington	Supported	Supported	No stance
West Virginia	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed
Wisconsin	Opposed	Opposed	No stance
Wyoming	Opposed	Opposed	Opposed

Climate change[edit]

Climate change refers to a significant change in surface and ocean temperatures, precipitation, storm and wind patterns, and other phenomena, usually over a long period of time. Natural activity, such as volcanoes and oceans, as well as human activity, particularly the use of oil and coal, releases carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These naturally occurring gases trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the planet, allowing biological life to flourish. Scientists have argued that human-caused greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have reached higher concentrations than would occur naturally. These scientists have argued that these gases are contributing to global warming and subsequent changes in the climate. Some scientists have argued that the effects of human-made global warming over the next century could produce higher sea levels, stronger and more frequent weather events such as hurricanes and droughts, melting polar ice caps, more acidic oceans, and greater flooding. Other scientists have argued that computer models showing the impact of human activity on climate change may not accurately represent all aspects of global climate and that the precise impact of human-generated greenhouse gases on climate change is not easily calculated given other potential contributors of climate change, such as solar activity, and the absorption of greenhouse gases by forests and plants.^[5][6]

Climate change has been a major policy issue since the early 1990s and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty that committed signatory countries to reducing their greenhouse gases to try and mitigate the potential impacts of human-made climate change. Since the 1990s, climate change has increasingly become a highly partisan issue because it raises questions about the role of government, the short and long-term costs and benefits to immediate government action, and how best to balance affordable energy and economic growth with environmental protection and public health. Climate change policies have focused primarily on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector, especially in power plants that use oil and coal, and the transportation sector. Other policies have focused on incentives or subsidies for renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, which produce fewer emissions.^[7][8][9]

In 2016, Republicans generally were critical of climate policies, arguing that they would increase energy costs for consumers with little to no environmental benefit. Several Republicans raised objections to the conclusions of climate science, about whether human-caused climate change was occurring at a dangerous rate, and the extent to which human activity had an impact on changes in the climate. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said he would rescind the Clean Power Plan—the Obama administration's major climate rule—as president. Trump also said he would pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, which pledged the United States to lower its emissions voluntarily.^[10]

Democrats generally supported immediate government action to reduce emissions, claiming that climate change was an urgent environmental threat. Democrats also supported government subsidies for wind and solar energy projects as alternatives to oil and natural gas. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said she would implement and extend the Clean Power Plan and continue U.S. involvement in the Paris climate agreement as president. Clinton also supported stricter limits on oil and gas drilling, particularly offshore drilling.^[11]

Clean Power Plan[edit]

Federal water policy[edit]

In May 2015, the Obama administration expanded federal water policy to include previously unregulated bodies of water. The rule—commonly known as Waters of the United States rule—expanded the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act over wetlands, streams, tributaries, and other waters in order to protect downstream water quality. Federal permits were required for any private individual, group, or business whose activities could affect these waters. Like the Clean Power Plan, the rule was a highly partisan issue. Republicans opposed the rule while Democrats supported it.^{[22][23][24][25]}

How the rule would increase the power and jurisdiction of the federal government over water was debated. The Obama EPA argued that the plan would increase the number of regulated waters by 3 percent and cost as much as $162 million to $279 million per year. The rule's supporters argued that it would protect water quality and clarify which bodies of water should be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The rule's opponents argued that it would vastly increase the EPA's power over water and negatively affect property rights, increasing building costs and negatively affecting business growth.^{[26][27][28][29]}

The rule was also challenged in federal court. In October 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit blocked the rule's implementation temporarily to decide whether the rule was permissible under federal law. At least 31 states challenged the rule in federal court.^[4][30][31]

Opposition and support for the Waters of the United States rule States colored orange sued the federal government over the rule; states colored purple indicated their support for the rule in federal court, and states in white had not taken an official position.

Drinking water[edit]

After the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, emerged in late 2015 and early 2016, much attention was paid to the issue of ensuring drinking water quality in the coming decades. Policymakers were confronted by the need to repair deteriorating infrastructure in order to maintain water quality as well as the need to keep those reforms affordable. Estimates varied on the total costs of water system infrastructure needs. The American Water Works Association found that the United States had around 6.1 million lead water lines, although difficulties with record keeping made estimates difficult to calculate. According to the EPA's 2013 national assessment, water infrastructure was in need of $384.2 billion during the 20-year period between 2011 and 2030 in order for water systems to "continue to provide safe drinking water to the public."^[32][33][34]

Both major parties pledged to make drinking water quality a priority. Generally, Democrats promised more federal funding for communities facing water issues. A group of 96 U.S. House Democrats called for a minimum of $2 billion in fiscal year 2017 for loans to localities and utilities for water infrastructure improvements. As supporters of state and local control, Republicans were often critical of increased federal involvement in environmental issues, though the Republican Congress passed a $5 billion bill in September 2016 that would fund water infrastructure projects for states and localities. In general, however, Republicans view drinking water quality as a primarily state and local issue.^[35]

According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal, state, and local government spending on water utilities—water supply and wastewater treatment facilities—totaled $108.9 billion in 2014. This was 26 percent of all federal, state, and local government spending on transportation and water infrastructure, which totaled $416 billion in 2014. Nearly 96 percent of public spending on water utilities—$104.5 billion—came from state and local governments in 2014. Water utilities accounted for 33 percent of state and local government spending in 2014.^[36]

The chart below shows federal spending on water utilities compared to state and local spending between 1965 and 2014. After 1965, federal spending on water utilities peaked in 1977 at $16.8 billion and steadily declined to $4.36 billion in 2014—a decrease of 74 percent. By contrast, state and local spending grew steadily after 1977, rising from $38.22 billion to $105.4 billion in 2014—an increase of 175 percent.^[36]

Mercury and ozone standards[edit]

The EPA under the Obama administration made federal standards for mercury emissions and ground-level ozone more restrictive. As with other EPA actions during the Obama administration, stronger mercury and ozone standards were partisan issues, with Republicans critical of the new standards and Democrats supportive of them. Supporters argued that both regulations would produce health benefits that would outweigh the costs to states and industries and that those benefits would include fewer hospital visits, fewer asthma attacks, fewer heart attacks, and fewer individuals missing work for health reasons. Opponents argued that the standards would increase costs for electricity consumers, burden state and local governments that must meet the standards, and provide little to few environmental or health benefits.

Mercury standards targeted hazardous pollutants from about 585 coal and oil-fired power plants nationwide. As of 2016, the total cost to the power plant sector was estimated at $9.6 billion each year. Ozone standards covered statewide air quality, establishing the acceptable amount of ground level ozone—commonly known as smog—in the atmosphere, which is formed from the emissions of automobiles, power plants, factories, and manufacturing centers. In 2015, the EPA made the ozone standards more restrictive. They were expected to go into effect in 2025, with states having until between 2020 and 2037 to create and establish plans to meet federal standards.^{[37][38][39][40]}

Federal land policy[edit]

The size and management of federal land was a major issue in 2016, particularly in Western states, where the majority of federal land is located. Federal land policy generally involves the conservation and management of natural resources. Four federal agencies are responsible for 609-610 million acres of federal land, or around 26 percent of all land in the United States. Federal lands are used for conservation, recreation, wildlife protection, grazing, energy production, and other purposes. Ten Western state legislatures looked into the issue of federal land transfers to state governments between 2012 and 2016. Those states argued that vast tracts of federal land put them at an economic disadvantage and left them without control over how those lands were used. Republicans promised to implement federal land transfers while Democrats opposed transferring federal land to state governments.^[41]

At the 2016 Republican National Convention, the Republican platform committee voted in favor of a provision calling on Congress to pass national legislation that would transfer specific federal lands to state governments to be included in the party's 2016 platform. The provision did not define which federal lands would be included. The provision was at odds with statements made in January 2016 by Donald Trump, who expressed support for keeping federal lands under federal ownership. The Democratic platform endorsed keeping federal land under federal ownership.^[42]

Land management policies were debated for their economic, environmental and social impacts. Rising maintenance costs for federally owned areas sparked debate over the appropriate level of funding for federal land management. Additionally, the size of the federal government's land holdings and its acquisition of additional lands, particularly in the Western United States, were major issues due to their potential impact on state governments and private individuals.^[41][43]

As of November 2016, 10 Western state legislatures looked into the issue of federal land transfers. These states included Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.^[44]

The map below shows the percentage of federal land in each state. Alaska had the most federal land (223.8 million acres) while Nevada had the greatest percentage of federal land within a state (84.9 percent). In contrast, Rhode Island and Connecticut had the fewest acres of federal land: 5,157 acres and 8,752 acres, respectively. Connecticut and Iowa tied for the lowest percentage of federal land at 0.3 percent each.^[41]

Percentage of land owned by the federal land in each state (as of 2013)

Endangered species[edit]

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) mandates a list of endangered and threatened species and their protection. The legislation is meant to prevent the extinction of vulnerable species throughout the United States and to recover a species' population through conservation programs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the law's implementation. In 2016, there was debate over the proper balance between governmental protection of vulnerable species and the protection of private property rights. Other highly debated policy issues included the role of science, the costs of listing a species as protected, and the transparency of endangered species policy decisions. Republicans supported revisions to the ESA, while Democrats supported the ESA's implementation without revisions.^[40][45]

Environmental groups stressed the importance of government regulation of private activity to keep species from extinction, while property rights groups said that the Endangered Species Act was ineffective at balancing the two. Congressional Republicans introduced legislation to revise the Endangered Species Act, particularly intended to increase transparency of federal decisions and require scientific data used in ESA decisions be available online for public review.

The map below shows the number of species protected under the Endangered Species Act in each state as of May 2016. The United States had 2,389 species listed under the Endangered Species Act as of May 2016 (this includes the 50 states and does not include species listed in U.S. territories).^[46]

Hawaii, California, Alabama, Florida, and Texas had the largest number of federally listed species. Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Hampshire, and North Dakota had the fewest federally listed species.^[46]

Number of species protected under the Endangered Species Act by state (as of May 2016)

National races[edit]

Democratic Party[edit]

The Democratic Party adopted its 2016 platform at the Democratic National Convention in July 2016. The platform called climate change "an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time."^[47] Democrats promised to uphold the Paris climate change agreement and the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. The platform expressed commitment to the concept of environmental justice and stated that clean air and water were basic human rights. The platform endorsed more federal spending on drinking water infrastructure and wastewater systems. The platform supported revising the Safe Drinking Water Act to give the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate fracking. Democrats promised to regulate methane emissions from oil and natural gas production. The platform endorsed keeping federal land under federal ownership and reducing oil and natural gas production on federal land. Democrats said they opposed revisions to the federal Endangered Species Act and supported the existing system of listing threatened and endangered species.^[48]

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform on environmental policy

“ COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, BUILD A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY, AND SECURE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. Fifteen of the hottest years on record have occurred this century. While Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax,” 2016 is on track to break global temperature records once more. Cities from Miami to Baltimore are already threatened by rising seas. California and the West have suffered years of brutal drought. Alaska has been scorched by wildfire. New York has been battered by superstorms, and Texas swamped by flash floods. The best science tells us that without ambitious, immediate action across our economy to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, all of these impacts will be far worse in the future. We cannot leave our children a planet that has been profoundly damaged. Democrats share a deep commitment to tackling the climate challenge; creating millions of good-paying middle class jobs; reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050; and meeting the pledge President Obama put forward in the landmark Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global temperature increases to “well below” two degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century. We will take bold steps to slash carbon pollution and protect clean air at home, lead the fight against climate change around the world, ensure no Americans are left out or left behind as we accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, and be responsible stewards of our natural resources and our public lands and waters. Democrats reject the notion that we have to choose between protecting our planet and creating good-paying jobs. We can and we will do both. Building a Clean Energy Economy We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade, with half a billion solar panels installed within four years and enough renewable energy to power every home in the country. We will cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals, and offices through energy efficient improvements; modernize our electric grid; and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world. These efforts will create millions of new jobs and save families and businesses money on their monthly energy bills. We will transform American transportation by reducing oil consumption through cleaner fuels, vehicle electrification increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, boilers, ships, and trucks. We will make new investments in public transportation and build bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure across our urban and suburban areas. Democrats believe the tax code must reflect our commitment to a clean energy future by eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies as well as defending and extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy. Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals. Democrats believe that climate change is too important to wait for climate deniers and defeatists in Congress to start listening to science, and support using every tool available to reduce emissions now. Democrats are committed to defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards for automobiles and heavyduty vehicles, building codes and appliance standards. We are also committed to expanding clean energy research and development. Democrats recognize the importance of climate leadership at the local level and know that achieving our national clean energy goals requires an active partnership with states, cities, and rural communities where so much of our country’s energy policy is made. We will ensure that those taking the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency have the tools and resources they need to succeed. The federal government should lead by example, which is why we support taking steps to power the government with 100 percent clean electricity. Democrats are committed to closing the Halliburton loophole that stripped the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to regulate hydraulic fracturing, and ensuring tough safeguards are in place, including Safe Drinking Water Act provisions, to protect local water supplies. We believe hydraulic fracturing should not take place where states and local communities oppose it. We will reduce methane emissions from all oil and gas production and transportation by at least 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 through common-sense standards for both new and existing sources and by repairing and replacing thousands of miles of leaky pipes. This will both protect our climate and create thousands of good-paying jobs. We will work to expand access to cost-saving renewable energy by low-income households, create goodpaying jobs in communities that have struggled with energy poverty, and oppose efforts by utilities to limit consumer choice or slow clean energy deployment. We will streamline federal permitting to accelerate the construction of new transmission lines to get low-cost renewable energy to market, and incentivize wind, solar, and other renewable energy over the development of new natural gas power plants. We support President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. As we continue working to reduce carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions, we must ensure federal actions do not “significantly exacerbate” global warming. We support a comprehensive approach that ensures all federal decisions going forward contribute to solving, not significantly exacerbating, climate change. Democrats believe that our commitment to meeting the climate challenge must also be reflected in the infrastructure investments we make. We need to make our existing infrastructure safer and cleaner and build the new infrastructure necessary to power our clean energy future. To create good-paying middle class jobs that cannot be outsourced, Democrats support high labor standards in clean energy infrastructure and the right to form or join a union, whether in renewable power or advanced vehicle manufacturing. During the clean energy transition, we will ensure landowners, communities of color, and tribal nations are at the table. Securing Environmental and Climate Justice Democrats believe clean air and clean water are basic rights of all Americans. Yet as we saw in Flint, Michigan, low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately home to environmental justice “hot spots,” where air pollution, water pollution, and toxic hazards like lead increase health and economic hardship. The impacts of climate change will also disproportionately affect lowincome and minority communities, tribal nations, and Alaska Native villages—all of which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare. Simply put, this is environmental racism. Democrats believe we must make it a national priority to eradicate lead poisoning, which disproportionately impacts low-income children and children of color and can lead to lifelong health and educational challenges. We will prioritize hiring and training workers from affected communities to clean up toxic brownfields and expand clean energy, energy efficiency, and resilient infrastructure. The fight against climate change must not leave any community out or behind—including the coal communities who kept America’s lights on for generations. Democrats will fight to make sure these workers and their families get the benefits they have earned and the respect they deserve, and we will make new investments in energy-producing communities to help create jobs and build a brighter and more resilient economic future. We will also oppose threats to the public health of these communities from harmful and dangerous extraction practices, like mountaintop removal mining operations. All corporations owe it to their shareholders to fully analyze and disclose the risks they face, including climate risk. Those who fail to do so should be held accountable. Democrats also respectfully request the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change. Protecting Our Public Lands and Waters Democrats believe in the conservation and collaborative stewardship of our shared natural heritage: the public lands and waterways, the oceans, Everglades, Great Lakes, the Arctic, and all that makes America’s great outdoors priceless. As a nation, we need policies and investments that will keep America’s public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, protect native species and wildlife, and harness the immense economic and social potential of our public lands and waters. Democrats will work to establish an American Parks Trust Fund to help expand local, state, and national recreational opportunities, rehabilitate existing parks, and enhance America’s great outdoors—from our forests and coasts to neighborhood parks—so “America’s Best Idea” is held in trust for future generations, and all Americans can access and enjoy natural spaces. Democrats are committed to doubling the size of the outdoor economy, creating nearly hundreds of billions of dollars in new economic activity and millions of new jobs. Democrats will approach conservation of our public lands and waters in a way that reflects the diversity of our country, by actively engaging all Americans in the great outdoors and protecting natural landscapes and cultural sites that tell the story of America’s complex history. To help meet these goals, we will work to build a diverse workforce in agencies that manage America’s public lands, waters, and cultural sites. We oppose drilling in the Arctic and off the Atlantic coast, and believe we need to reform fossil fuel leasing on public lands. We will phase down extraction of fossil fuels from our public lands, starting with the most polluting sources, while making our public lands and waters engines of the clean energy economy and creating jobs across the country. Democrats will work to expand the amount of renewable energy production on federal lands and waters, from wind in Wyoming to solar in Nevada. Democrats oppose efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act to protect threatened and endangered species. Because the Bristol Bay drainages of Alaska produce the world’s largest salmon fisheries, we support efforts by the EPA under the Clean Water Act to establish proactively science-based restrictions on discharges of dredged or fill material associated with a potential Pebble mine and urge that such restrictions must apply to potential mines at other metallic sulfide deposits in those drainages. Agricultural lands account for nearly half of the total land area in America and our agricultural practices have a significant impact on our water, land, oceans, and the climate. Therefore, we believe that in order to be effective in keeping our air and water clean and combating climate change, we must enlist farmers as partners in promoting conservation and stewardship.[47][49] ”

Republican Party[edit]

The Republican Party adopted its 2016 platform at the Republican National Convention in July 2016. In lieu of federal regulations, the platform endorsed market-based policies to deal with environmental problems as well as a transfer of environmental protection responsibilities from the federal government to the states. The platform endorsed the transfer of certain federal lands from federal ownership to state government ownership. The platform opposed the federal listing of high-profile species such as the sage grouse, prairie chicken, and the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. Addressing EPA's regulations under the Obama administration, the platform called for eliminating the Waters of the United States rule under the Clean Water Act and for repealing the Clean Power Plan and its mandatory greenhouse gas reductions for power plants under Clean Air Act. On human-made climate change, the platform stated that the issue was “far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue” and called for “dispassionate analysis of hard data” on the issue. On renewable energy resources, the platform supported market-based incentives for individuals to manufacture renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy in lieu of federal subsidies.^[50]

The 2016 Republican Party Platform on environmental policy

“ Environmental Progress Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy’s success. We assert that private ownership has been the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while some of the worst instances of degradation have occurred under government control. Poverty, not wealth, is the gravest threat to the environment, while steady economic growth brings the technological advances which make environmental progress possible. The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend. The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation. Over the last eight years, the Administration has triggered an avalanche of regulation that wreaks havoc across our economy and yields minimal environmental benefits. The central fact of any sensible environmental policy is that, year by year, the environment is improving. Our air and waterways are much healthier than they were a few decades ago. As a nation, we have drastically reduced pollution, mainstreamed recycling, educated the public, and avoided ecological degradation. Even if no additional controls are added, air pollution will continue to decline for the next several decades due to technological turnover of aging equipment. These successes become a challenge for Democratic Party environmental extremists, who must reach farther and demand more to sustain the illusion of an environmental crisis. That is why they routinely ignore costs, exaggerate benefits, and advocate the breaching of constitutional boundaries by federal agencies to impose environmental regulation. At the same time, the environmental establishment looks the other way when environmental degradation is caused by the EPA and other federal agencies as was the case during the Animas River spill. Our agenda is high on job creation, expanding opportunity and providing a better chance at life for everyone willing to work for it. Our modern approach to environmentalism is directed to that end, and it starts with dramatic change in official Washington. We propose to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states and to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with structural safeguards against politicized science. We will strictly limit congressional delegation of rule-making authority, and require that citizens be compensated for regulatory takings. We will put an end to the legal practice known as “sue and settle,” in which environmental groups sue federal agencies whose officials are complicit in the litigation so that, with the taxpayers excluded, both parties can reach agreement behind closed doors. That deceit betrays the public’s trust; it will no longer be tolerated. We will also reform the Equal Access to Justice Act to cap and disclose payments made to environmental activists and return the Act to its original intent. We will enforce the original intent of the Clean Water Act, not it’s distortion by EPA regulations. We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, something never envisioned when Congress passed the Clean Air Act. We will restore to Congress the authority to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and modernize the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act so it can no longer invite frivolous lawsuits, thwart sorely needed projects, kill jobs, and strangle growth. The federal government owns or controls over 640 million acres of land in the United States, most of which is in the West. These are public lands, and the public should have access to them for appropriate activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Federal ownership or management of land also places an economic burden on counties and local communities in terms of lost revenue to pay for things such as schools, police, and emergency services. It is absurd to think that all that acreage must remain under the absentee ownership or management of official Washington. Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole. The residents of state and local communities know best how to protect the land where they work and live. They practice boots-on- the-ground conservation in their states every day. We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish Congress’ right to approve the designation of national monuments and to further require the approval of the state where a national monument is designated or a national park is proposed. There is certainly a need to protect certain species threatened worldwide with extinction. However, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) should not include species such as gray wolves and other species if these species exist elsewhere in healthy numbers in another state or country. To upset the economic viability of an area with an unneeded designation costs jobs and hurts local communities. We must ensure that this protection is done effectively, reasonably, and without unnecessarily impeding the development of lands and natural resources. The ESA should ensure that the listing of endangered species and the designation of critical habitats are based upon sound science and balance the protection of endangered species with the costs of compliance and the rights of property owners. Instead, over the last few decades, the ESA has stunted economic development, halted the construction of projects, burdened landowners, and has been used to pursue policy goals inconsistent with the ESA — all with little to no success in the actual recovery of species. For example, we oppose the listing of the lesser prairie chicken and the potential listing of the sage grouse. Neither species has been shown to be in actual danger and the listings threaten to devastate farmers, ranchers, and oil and gas production. While species threatened with extinction must be protected under the ESA, any such protection must be done in a reasonable and transparent manner with stakeholder input and in consideration of the impact on the development of lands and natural resources. Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate. We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund. We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.[50][49] ”

Libertarian Party[edit]

The Libertarian Party adopted its 2016 platform at the Libertarian National Convention in May 2016.

The 2016 Libertarian Party Platform on environmental policy

“ Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.[51][49] ”

Green Party[edit]

The Green Party National Committee adopted its 2016 platform in August 2016. The platform's introduction to the section on environmental policy and the section on climate change can be viewed by clicking "show" in the box below.

The 2016 Green Party Platform on environmental policy

“ Ecological Sustainability The human community is an element of the Earth community, not the other way around. All human endeavors are situated within the dynamics of the biosphere. If we wish to have sustainable institutions and enterprises, they must fit well with the processes of the Earth. The ideology of industrialism, in both capitalist and communist countries, insists that modern society lives on top of nature and should rightly use and despoil the rest of the natural world as we desire— because any loss of the ecosystems is merely an "externality" in economic thought and because any problems can be addressed later by a technological fix. We are now living through the painful consequences of that arrogant, ignorant perspective. Many of our children suffer from accumulations of mercury and other toxins in their neurological systems, environmentally related cancer is on the rise, and our air and water are increasingly polluted. Meanwhile, our ecosystems are being compromised by the spreading presence of genetically engineered organisms. Our houses and buildings, manufacturing processes, and industrial agriculture were all designed with the assumption of an endless supply of cheap and readily available fossil fuels. Pollution and despoiling the land were not part of the thinking. The Green Party, however, is optimistic about the alternatives that now exist and that could be encouraged through tax policy and the market incentives of fuel efficiency. We also challenge the grip of the oil, automotive, and automobile insurance industries that have managed to block or roll back progress in public mass transit. The gutting of subsidies for the railroads has meant not only fewer passenger routes but also the addition of thousands of large freight trucks on our highways, decreasing public safety and increasing pollution. We are committed to extending the greening of waste management by encouraging the spread of such practices as reduce, return, reuse, and recycle. We strongly oppose the recent attempts to roll back the federal environmental protection laws that safeguard our air, water, and soil. The health of the life-support systems— the ecosystems on our continent — is of paramount importance. Inherent in the efficient dynamics of those ecosystems is a vital profusion of biodiversity. Therefore, the Greens call for a halt to the destruction of habitats, which are being sacrificed to unqualified economic expansion. We humans have a moral responsibility to all of our relations, many of which are facing extinction because we carelessly and permanently halt their long evolutionary journey. The Green Party also supports the spread of organic agriculture and the careful tending of our nation's precious remaining topsoil. We support planetary efforts to slow the ever-increasing numbers of humans pressuring the ecosystems, and we especially support the reduction of consumption of the world's raw materials by the industrialized Northern Hemisphere. We are appalled by our country's withdrawal from serious efforts to limit greenhouse gases that are contributing mightily to global climate disruption. The Green Party strongly urges the United States to adopt an actively responsible position in this crisis and to take significant action to address the problem. A. Climate Change OUR POSITION Greens want to stop runaway climate change, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least 40% by 2020 and 95% by 2050, over 1990 levels. Climate change is the gravest environmental, social and economic peril that humanity has ever met. Across the world, it is causing vanishing polar ice, melting glaciers, growing deserts, stronger storms, rising oceans, less biodiversity, deepening droughts, as well as more disease, hunger, strife and human misery. It is a tragedy unfolding in slow motion. Greenhouse gases warm the Earth by trapping heat in the atmosphere. Much of that heat is initially absorbed by the ocean, creating roughly a 30-year delay in the impact of that heat at the surface of the planet. Practically speaking, that means that the melting glaciers and expanding deserts of 2009 were the result of greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere in the late 1970s, when the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was below 350 parts per million (ppm). To return to a safe level of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, we must reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases as quickly as possible to levels that existed before 1980, to 350ppm carbon dioxide. Greens support science-based policies to curb climate change. We have an ambitious plan to make drastic changes quickly to avert global catastrophe. We will expend maximum effort to preserve a planet friendly to life as we know it by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and actively removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. GREEN SOLUTIONS 1. Strong International Climate Treaty The climate treaty reached in Paris in December, 2015 is inadequate to address the climate change crisis. The 195 nations involved pledged to reduce greenhouse gases. The pledges are not mandatory, however. The treaty does not require the phase out of fossil fuels, and it delays higher aid levels for poorer nations until 2025. We call for legally binding commitments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2020 and a 95% reduction by 2050 over 1990 levels. We also call for the immediate assumption of responsibility by wealthy nations to financially assist poorer countries struggling with the effects of climate change. 2. Economic Policy For A Safer Climate Enact a Fee & Dividend system on fossil fuels to enable the free market to include the environmental costs of their extraction and use. These fees shall be applied as far upstream as possible, either when fuel passes from extraction to refining, distribution or consumption; or when it first enters the United States' jurisdiction. The carbon fee will initially be small, a dime per kilogram of carbon, to avoid creating a shock to the economy. The fee will be increased by 10% each year that global atmospheric carbon dioxide content is greater than 350 ppm, decreased 10% each year it's less than 300 ppm, and repealed entirely when it falls below 250 ppm. Although imported fossil fuel has no more impact on global climate change than domestic, importing petroleum and natural gas has a catastrophic impact on American foreign policy and the American economy. We will enact this same fee on imported fossil fuels a second time to give the free market an incentive to wean America off foreign oil and gas. The Green Party calls for elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, nuclear power, biomass and waste incineration and biofuels. We must also acknowledge that the bulk of our military budget is, in fact, an indirect subsidy for oil & gas corporations. To prevent perverse incentives arising from higher carbon prices, the Green Party mandates clean fuels in addition to pricing carbon. Otherwise dirty energy sources like nuclear power, biomass and biofuels that are not subject to carbon pricing will become economically competitive. 3. Repay Our Climate Debt Pay for adaptation to climate change in countries with less responsibility for climate change. Provide a carbon neutral development path for those countries that can no longer be permitted to develop in the same way we did—by burning cheap fossil fuels. 4. More Efficiency And Conservation Adopt energy efficiency standards that reduce energy demand economy-wide by 50% over the next 20–30 years. The U.S. can make massive reductions in its energy use through a combination of conservation and efficiency measures. We don't actually need any additional power. Instead, we can and should reduce our consumption of power. Build an efficient, low cost public transportation system. The best incentive we can provide to live closer to work and reduce the use of private vehicles is to make the alternative inexpensive and convenient to use. Adopt a national zero waste policy. The less we consume and throw away, the less we will need to produce and replace. 5. Clean, Green Energy and Jobs Create an inclusive program to train workers for the new, clean energy economy. Focusing on both the environment and social justice, prioritize the creation of green jobs in communities of color and low-income communities. Transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, with at least 80 percent achieved by 2030, using wind, solar, ocean, small-scale hydro, and geothermal power. Renewable energy is technically and economically feasible. The barriers to a renewable energy economy come from economic, political and social interests, and are not technical. End the use of nuclear power. Nuclear energy is massively polluting, dangerous, financially risky, expensive and slow to implement. Our money is better spent on wind, solar, geothermal, conservation and small-scale hydroelectric. Stop "dirty clean energy." Many of the "solutions" offered in climate legislation aren't real solutions. Biomass incineration (trees, crops, construction debris and certain types of waste), landfill gas and many types of biofuels will dump massive quantities of toxic pollutants into the air and water, and some of these energy sources produce more greenhouse gas emissions than coal. Natural gas is primarily methane, which is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Consequently, when pipeline leakage is considered, the clean-burning characteristics of natural gas can be lost, resulting in a fuel with climate impacts as bad as coal. Biomass and biofuels will also increase deforestation, contributing to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 6. Clean, Green Agriculture Convert U.S farm and ranchland to organic practices. Chemical and industrial agriculture produces 35-50% of climate destabilizing greenhouse gases. Switch to local food production and distribution. Localized, organic food production and distribution reduce fossil fuel usage and enriches soil that sequesters more carbon dioxide. Reduce methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases by rapidly phasing out confined animal feeding operations, and encouraging a reduction in meat consumption.[52][49] ”

Presidential candidates' stances on the environment[edit]

Hillary Clinton[edit]

See also: Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

Energy development[edit]

• In a December 17, 2015, radio interview with South Carolina radio station WGCV-AM, Hillary Clinton said that she was doubtful of the need to drill for oil or gas off the eastern seaboard of the U.S. She said, “I am very skeptical about the need or desire for us to pursue offshore drilling off the coast of South Carolina, and frankly off the coast of other southeast states.”^[53]

Climate change[edit]

• Politico reported on August 11, 2016, that Hillary Clinton had assembled an advisory team on climate change of more than 100 experts, including former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), and many former Obama administration officials.^[54]

• According to The Hill, “Clinton is open to working with lawmakers on a tax on carbon dioxide emissions if Congress wants it.” On July 26, 2016, Clinton’s energy advisor Trevor Houser said, “Democrats believe that climate change is too important to wait for climate deniers in Congress to start listening to science. And while it’s always important to remain open to a conversation about how to address this issue with Congress, we need a plan that we can implement day one, because it’s too important to wait, and we need to focus on those things as well.”^[55]

• Clinton, on January 18, 2016, signed a pledge to power at least half of the nation's energy needs with renewable sources by 2030. The pledge was devised by NextGen Climate, a San Francisco-based environmental advocacy organization that was founded by philanthropist, environmental activist, and Democratic donor Tom Steyer in 2013. The group is affiliated with NextGen Climate Action, a super PAC.^[56]

• In response to the Paris Agreement adopted on December 12, 2015, Clinton released the following statement, in part: “I applaud President Obama, Secretary Kerry and our negotiating team for helping deliver a new, ambitious international climate agreement in Paris. This is an historic step forward in meeting one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century—the global crisis of climate change. … We cannot afford to be slowed by the climate skeptics or deterred by the defeatists who doubt America’s ability to meet this challenge.”^[57]

• Clinton’s campaign announced on November 11, 2015, a $30 billion plan to benefit coal communities as the nation’s electric grid shifts to cleaner energy sources, Time reported. Clinton’s plan would invest in building roads, bridges, water systems, and airports in Appalachia and other coal areas, expand broadband access, and increase public investment in research and development. She would expand a “major public works project,” according to a campaign white paper, aimed at producing clean energy through hydro power on federal lands. As president, Clinton would also find ways to replace local revenue for public schools lost when coal production facilities disappear, ensuring that workers at bankrupt coal companies keep their benefits. She would also award grants for efficient housing upgrades and community health centers in coal communities.^[58]

• Clinton announced her climate change policy on July 26, 2015. She focused on two national goals: installing more than 500 million solar panels across the country by the end of her first term and generating enough renewable energy to power every home in 10 years. In a video released by her campaign promoting her plan, Clinton attacked Republican presidential candidates who “still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change. Who would rather remind us they’re not scientists than listen to those who are.”^[59][60]
  • After Clinton unveiled part of her climate change policy, she received backlash for using a private jet. On July 28, 2015, an aide to Clinton announced that her campaign would be carbon neutral. "We'll be offsetting the carbon footprint of the campaign and that includes travel," the aide said. Clinton previously pledged to run a carbon neutral campaign in 2008.^[61]

• In December 2014, Clinton said, “The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say, sea levels are rising, ice caps are melting, storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc.”^[62]

• During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton expressed her support for cap and trade.^[63]

Keystone XL Pipeline[edit]

• Hillary Clinton announced on September 22, 2015, that she opposed the Keystone XL pipeline. “I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is -- a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change,” Clinton said. She continued, “And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues. Therefore I oppose it.” The announcement spurred a number of responses from other candidates via Twitter.^[64][65]

• Clinton declined to take a position on the Keystone XL pipeline on July 27, 2015, citing her involvement in evaluating the project as the reason for her silence. “No other presidential candidate was secretary of state when this process started, and I put together a very thorough deliberative evidence-based process to evaluate the environmental impact and other considerations of Keystone. As such, I know there is a very careful evaluation continuing and that the final decision is pending to be made by Secretary Kerry and President Obama. Very simply, the evaluation determines whether this pipeline is in our nation’s interest and I’m confident that the pipeline impacts on global greenhouse gas emissions will be a major factor in that decisions, as the president has said. So I will refrain from commenting because I had a leading role in getting that process started and I think we have to let it run its course,” Clinton said.^[66]

Fracking[edit]

• During the ninth Democratic debate held in Brooklyn, New York, on April 14, 2016, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she had changed her opinion on fracking. Clinton responded, “No, well, I don’t think I’ve changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas. And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can. That’s why I’ve set big goals. I want to see us deploy a half a billion more solar panels by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to provide electricity to every home in America within 10 years. So I have big, bold goals, but I know in order to get from where we are, where the world is still burning way too much coal, where the world is still too intimidated by countries and providers like Russia, we have got to make a very firm but decisive move in the direction of clean energy.”^[67]

• At the seventh Democratic debate on March 6, 2016, Clinton discussed her stance on fracking. She said, “You know, I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — number three — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. So first, we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met.”^[68]

• Clinton tweeted on August 18, 2015, her disapproval of Shell being permitted to explore the Arctic for oil. “The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling,” she wrote.^[69]

• At the National Clean Energy Summit, Clinton spoke about the benefits of natural gas and the possibility of exporting it. She also expressed concerns about methane leaks and the need to regulate fracking.^[70]

Environmental conservation[edit]

• Clinton voted for S 22 - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which sought to designate certain areas as federally protected land.^[71]

• In 2003, Clinton voted for an amendment which sought to prevent "consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."^[72]

Donald Trump[edit]

See also: Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

• In a speech in Pennsylvania on September 22, 2016, Trump outlined his energy policies. “I’m going to lift the restrictions on American energy and allow this wealth to pour into our communities including right here in the state of Pennsylvania. We will end the war on coal and on miners,” said Trump to attendees of the 2016 Shale Insight Conference, a gathering of natural gas producers. He said, “Billions of dollars in private infrastructure investment have been lost to the Obama-Clinton restriction agenda. … We will streamline the permitting process for all energy infrastructure projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama -– creating countless more jobs in the process.” Trump further outlined that he would roll back Obama's climate change plans, promote oil and gas drilling on federal lands, and promote the construction of oil and gas pipelines.^[73]

• During a rally in Fresno, California, on May 27, 2016, Donald Trump said that there was no drought in the state and that officials were prioritizing an endangered fish, the Delta smelt, with its water restrictions. “We’re going to solve your water problem. You have a water problem that is so insane. It is so ridiculous where they’re taking the water and shoving it out to sea,” he said.^[74]
  • While campaigning in California on Sunday, Bernie Sanders challenged Trump’s position with sarcasm. “You see, we don't fully appreciate the genius of Donald Trump, who knows more than all the people of California, knows more than all the scientists," he said.^[75]

• Donald Trump's campaign asked U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) to draft a white paper on energy policy. The Huffington Post reported on May 13, 2016, that Cramer “would emphasize the dangers of foreign ownership of U.S. energy assets, burdensome taxes, and over-regulation” in his policy paper. Cramer has previously stated that believes the planet is cooling rather than warming.^[76]

• On August 24, 2012, Trump tweeted that wind turbines were "an environmental & aesthetic disaster."^[77]

• Trump wrote in his 2011 book, Time to Get Tough, that the Marcellus Shale was "one of the largest mother lodes of natural gas" and should be used to buy "more time to innovate and develop newer, more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper forms of energy."^[78]

• In a 2011 interview on energy production, Trump expressed incredulity that the United States was not more aggressively using natural gas and drilling.^[79]

Climate change[edit]

• The Trump campaign released a statement on the Paris Climate Accord after it was announced on October 5, 2016, that the international climate change deal would go into effect on November 4, 2016. The Trump campaign called it a “bad deal” that would “impose enormous costs on American households through higher electricity prices and higher taxes.” The statement went on to say, "As our nation considers these issues, Mr. Trump and Gov. Pence appreciate that many scientists are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions. We need America's scientists to continue studying the scientific issues but without political agendas getting in the way. We also need to be vigilant to defend the interests of the American people in any efforts taken on this front."^[80]

• Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said on September 27, 2016, that Trump believes “global warming is naturally occurring” and humans are not the cause.^[81]

• Responding to a questionnaire published in Scientific American on September 13, 2016, Trump said, “There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of 'climate change.' Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.”^[82]

• Trump delivered a speech on energy production at an oil and natural gas conference in North Dakota on May 26, 2016. Through the use of untapped domestic oil and gas reserves, Trump said that he would make the U.S. independent from foreign oil providers. If elected, he also pledged to take the following actions in his first 100 days in office: rescind the Climate Action Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule, support the renewal of the Keystone XL Pipeline project, cancel the Paris Climate Agreement, and reform the regulatory environment. The merit of future regulations, Trump said, would be determined by asking, “Is this regulation good for the American worker?”^[83][84][85]

• Politico reported on May 23, 2016, that Trump filed an application to construct a sea wall to protect one of his golf course properties in Ireland from “global warming and its effects.” Trump previously called climate change “a total hoax.”^[86]

Fracking[edit]

• While campaigning in Colorado Springs, Colo., on July 29, 2016, reporter Brandon Rittiman asked Trump about a fracking ballot measure that would change the state constitution to allow municipalities to ban oil and gas exploration. "Well, I’m in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it,” Trump told the reporter. “I mean, there’s some areas, maybe, they don’t want to have fracking. And I think if the voters are voting for it, that’s up to them… If a municipality or a state wants to ban fracking, I can understand that.” Trump's response put him on the side of environmental activists. The GOP is typically aligned with the energy industry, but Trump's statement on the fracking measure aligns with Hillary Clinton's support of allowing states and cities to determine whether to permit fracking.^[87]

Keystone XL Pipeline[edit]

• In an interview with Greta Van Sustern on FOX News in January 2012, Trump called President Barack Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline "disgraceful." Trump added, "Frankly, we don't need Canada. We should just be able to drill our own oil. As long as it's there we certainly should have approved it. It was jobs and cheaper oil. It's just absolutely incredible. I guess President Obama took care of the environmentalists, but it is absolutely terrible. And it is not an environmental problem at all in any way, shape, or form."^[88]

Gary Johnson[edit]

See also: Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016

• In a speech on September 14, 2016, Johnson voiced his support for the EPA, saying, “Government I think has a fundamental responsibility to protect us against those that would do us harm, in this case pollution. And I support the EPA.”^[89]

• On his campaign website, Johnson described his approach to environmental policy: "We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President. Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe. Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market. Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another. ... In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate. ... Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda."^[90]

• In a video posted to YouTube in March 2012, Gary Johnson said he opposed the Keystone XL pipeline only if eminent domain were necessary to establish it. "If the Keystone pipeline is an issue of eminent domain – no, the government should not get involved or I'd have to really have a look at that. If it's rules and regulations that we're talking about, then, yes, rules and regulations can make and should make and I would support making the Keystone XL pipeline happen."^[91]

• Commenting on the balance between environmental protection and energy production on his 2012 presidential campaign website, Johnson wrote, "When it comes to the environment, the Federal government’s responsibility is no different than in other aspects of our lives. It is simply to protect us from those who would do us harm and damage our property. There are bad actors who would pollute our water supplies and our air if allowed to do so, and we must have laws and regulations to protect innocent Americans from the harm those bad actors would do. However, common sense must prevail, and the costs of all regulations must be weighed against the benefits. The government should simply stay out of the business of trying to promote or 'manage' energy development. The marketplace will meet our energy needs in the most economical and efficient manner possible – if government will stay out of the way."^[92]

• In September 2012, Johnson praised the Environmental Protection Agency, writing, "The EPA protects us against those that would pollute, and without them a lot more polluters would be allowed to pollute."^[93]

• Johnson said he favored nuclear power in an August 2011 interview.^[94]

Climate change[edit]

• In an interview with the Washington Examiner on July 10, 2016, Johnson commented on the EPA and coal industry, saying, "The role, as far as the Environmental Protection Agency, is to identify health or safety concerns with regard to emissions. I think right now what is happening with climate change, what is happening with the coal industry, is that coal has been bankrupted. It has been bankrupted by the free market. As low as the price of coal is today, natural gas is even lower. So, no new coal plants are going to be built ... Those that exist now are being grandfathered in [under the EPA regulations]. So, coal, the number one contributor to CO2 emissions in the world, is dead. Coal is dead. And the free market did it because we, as consumers, are demanding less carbon emissions.^[95]

• In an interview with CNBC on August 22, 2016, Johnson said, "I do think that climate change is occurring, that it is man-caused. One of the proposals that I think is a very libertarian proposal, and I'm just open to this, is taxing carbon emission that may have the result of being self-regulating. ... The market will take care of it. I mean, when you look at it from the standpoint of better results, and actually less money to achieve those results, that's what is being professed by a carbon tax."^[96]

• On the questions of climate change and whether or not humans contribute to it, Johnson said on his campaign website: "Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all."^[90]

• Johnson said in a December 2011 interview with NPR that although he believed climate change was human-induced, he did not support cap and trade regulations to lower carbon emissions. He said, "You know, I'm accepting that global warming is man-caused. That said, I am opposed to cap and trade. I think that free-market approach. Hey, we're all demanding less carbon emission. I think we're going to get it."^[97]

Fracking[edit]

• In November 2011, Johnson said he would "keep an open mind" on fracking. He cautioned, however, that "the fact that in Pennsylvania you could turn your faucet on and get water before fracking, and afterwards you could light it — that's a concern. That's a real, live concern.”^[98]

Jill Stein[edit]

See also: Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016

• On September 7, 2016, warrants were filed in Morton County, North Dakota, for the arrest of Jill Stein and her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, for misdemeanor charges of criminal trespass and criminal mischief. They allegedly vandalized equipment at a construction site to protest the Dakota Access pipeline. Stein called her actions "civil disobedience." She added, “I hope the North Dakota authorities press charges against the real vandalism taking place at the Standing Rock Sioux reservation: the bulldozing of sacred burial sites and the unleashing of vicious attack dogs."^[99]

• Stein expressed her opposition to fossil fuels in an interview on Fox Business on August 26, 2016. She said, “What the science actually says and the studies and the experts say that if we have the political will, we can convert. And it’s not just a matter of shutting down fossil fuel—it’s a matter of creating the good jobs for the economy of the future that’s healthy for us as people and healthy for the planet. … Fortunately, we save so much money by the health improvements from phasing out fossil fuels—it’s actually enough to pay for those jobs to ensure the green energy transition.”^[100]

• Jill Stein tweeted on August 11, 2016, “My attorney general will prosecute Exxon for lying to the world about climate change. We need to end fossil fuels before it's too late.”^[101]

• On January 26, 2016, Stein expressed outrage over the lead concentrations in the drinking water of residents of Flint, Michigan. She said, "No human being should be condemned to drink water contaminated by a neurotoxin.” Stein called for criminal prosecution of the governor and other public officials who were aware of the contamination, immediate federal and state intervention to resolve Flint’s water crisis, and a massive federal investment in the nation’s crumbling water system.^[102]

• In a November 29, 2015, interview with The Harvard Crimson, Stein said she “hopes to replicate key aspects of the New Deal legislation,” which she believes “would allow the US to become fully dependent on renewable energy within 15 years.” She said the plan “revives the economy, creates well paying living wage jobs that we desperately need at the same time that it greens the economy and the energy system and therefore turns the tide on climate change and makes wars for oil obsolete. It’s a win-win.”^[103]

• As part of the "Green New Deal" promoted on her 2016 presidential campaign website, Stein supported "transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030."^[104]

• Stein was charged with trespassing when she attempted to provide food to activists protesting the Keystone XL pipeline in October 2012.^[105]

• On Stein's 2012 presidential campaign website, she listed five action items she would take to improve the environment.

• "Create millions of green jobs in areas such as weatherization, recycling, public transportation, worker and community owned cooperatives, and energy-efficient infrastructure."^[106]

• "Adopt the EPA's new tougher standards on ozone pollution."^[106]

• "Promote conversion to sustainable, nontoxic materials."^[106]

• "Promote use of closed-loop, zero waste processes."^[106]

• "Promote organic agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry."^[106]

Climate change[edit]

• On June 28, 2016, Jill Stein “said that the proposed deal with Mexico and Canada to go to 50% carbon-free electricity from 2025 is inadequate to meet the climate goals set in Paris,” according to a press release from her campaign. Stein said, "Obama's proposals are a step in the right direction but way too little. We need an emergency national mobilization similar to what our country did after Pearl Harbor at the outset of WWII." Stein proposes transitioning “to 100% clean energy for everything - not just electricity – by 2030 while creating 20 million jobs and avoiding hundreds of thousands of annual ‘excess deaths’ from air pollution.”^[107]

• During a February 15, 2016, interview with Chris Hedges posted on TheRealNews.com, Stein said, "[W]e are facing an all-out climate emergency."^[108]

Fracking[edit]

• After traveling to Paris to participate in events related to the United Nations Climate Change Conference, Stein said in a statement on December 11, 2015, “The voluntary, unenforceable pledges being produced by COP21 are entirely insufficient to prevent catastrophic climate change. Scientific analysis shows that these pledges will lead us to 3 degrees Celsius global temperature rise - and that will be catastrophic." She added that the spread of the hydrofracking industry in the U.S. “is leading to a spreading cancer of polluted groundwater and fracked gas pipelines.”^[109]

Ballot measures[edit]

Environmental ballot measures[edit]

See also: Environment on the ballot, Water on the ballot, and Natural resources on the ballot

Ballotpedia tracked the following environmental ballot measures in 2016.

Voting on the Environment
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local environment Local GMO Local fracking

Voting on Water
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local water Fluoridation Local utility fees

Voting on Natural Resources
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

Certified environmental ballot measures[edit]

State ballot measures[edit]

Local ballot measures[edit]

Proposed environmental ballot measures[edit]

The following environmental ballot measures did not make the ballot in 2016.

See also[edit]

• 

  2016 coverage on Ballotpedia

• 

  Environmental policy on Ballotpedia

• 

  Presidential election, 2016

• United States Congress elections, 2016
• State executive official elections, 2016
• State legislative elections, 2016

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Ballotpedia's Election Analysis in 2016 Main Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2016 • Terms and concepts: Partisan Risk Federal Desk • U.S. House battlegrounds • U.S. Senate battlegrounds • Presidential battleground states • The 2016 Senate races • The post-2016 federal government scenarios • Impact of the 2016 election on the United States Supreme Court • Policy positions of the 2016 candidates State Desk • Gubernatorial and legislative party control of state government • State government trifectas •State executive official elections • State legislative elections • State judicial elections •State supreme court partisanship, 2016 • State supreme court changes, 2016 •2016 ballot measures • State legislative battleground chambers, 2016 Local Desk • Partisanship in local elections • Money in local elections • Partisanship in United States mayoral elections • Race, law enforcement, and the ballot box • Education reform at the state and local levels • Battles over school governance • State funding battles and local responses • The fight to shape public school curriculum Policy Desk • Education policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Healthcare policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Environmental policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Election policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Energy policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Budget policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Public policy in the 2016 elections

v • e Ballotpedia About Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker External Relations: Andrew Heath • Hannah Nelson Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch Policy: Jimmy McAllister • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Annelise Reinwald • Emma Soukup Content Strategy: Josh Altic Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha Contributors: Scott Rasmussen Editorial Content Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Ethan Sorell • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora

---

---