Federal policy on climate change, 2017

Trump Administration President Donald Trump Vice President Mike Pence Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team

Policy positions Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity

Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration

Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

Climate change can refer to significant or large-scale changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, or other weather-related events that occur over a long period of time, including decades, centuries, and millennia. Human-caused climate change is the theory that human-induced increases in carbon dioxide and similar greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere can lead to global warming and subsequent changes in the climate.

On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Under the agreement, signatory countries pledge to reduce carbon dioxide and similar emissions in an effort to limit human-caused climate change. Trump argued that the agreement was unfair to the United States, would reduce jobs, and would have little effect on global temperatures if fully implemented. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider formally repealing the Clean Power Plan, a federal rule finalized in 2015 mandating reduced carbon dioxide and similar emissions from existing oil, coal, and natural gas-fired power plants.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}

This page tracked major events and policy positions of the Trump administration on climate change in 2017. This page was updated through November 2017. Think something is missing? Please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

This page summarizes the Trump administration's actions related to climate change and federal climate change policies.

Climate change policy in Trump's first year[edit]

During his first 100 days, President Donald Trump signed executive orders directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider formally repealing Clean Power Plan, a federal rule finalized in 2015 aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and similar emissions from power plants. In March 2017, the EPA withdrew a request that oil and gas producers report data on their methane emissions to the agency.

Federal report on climate change (November 2017)[edit]

On November 3, 2017, the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, a study required under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, was released. The report argued that human activity, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, are the main cause of rising global temperatures. According to the report, "This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence."^[12]

On November 7, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told USA Today that the report would not prevent the agency from proceeding with its repeal of the Clean Power Plan. Pruitt said, "We’re taking the very necessary step to evaluate our authority under the Clean Air Act and we’ll take steps that are required to issue a subsequent rule. That’s our focus.” Pruitt added, "Does this report have any bearing on that? No it doesn’t. It doesn’t impact the withdrawal and it doesn’t impact the replacement."^[13]

Proposed repeal of Clean Power Plan (October 2017)[edit]

On October 10, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a proposed rule to repeal the plan, arguing that the plan "was premised on a novel and expansive view of Agency authority" and "ignored states' concerns and eroded longstanding and important partnerships that are a necessary part of achieving positive environmental outcomes." The EPA argued that the Obama administration's cost and benefit estimates for the plan were uncertain and/or controversial. The EPA also estimated that the plan's repeal would provide up to $33 billion in avoided compliance costs. Attorney Generals Eric Schneiderman (D-N.Y.) and Maura Healey (D-Mass.) announced that they would sue the EPA over the repeal. Healey argued that the "decision to abandon the Clean Power Plan violates the law." Schneiderman argued that the repeal involves "putting industry special interests ahead of New Yorkers’ and all Americans’ safety, health, and the environment."^[10][14][15]

Reversal of Obama-era flood standards (August 2017)[edit]

On August 15, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order to change federal environmental review and permitting requirements for infrastructure projects, including oil and natural gas pipelines and electricity transmission projects, among others. The order also repealed a January 2015 directive from then-President Barack Obama requiring new federally funded projects to meet specific flood risk standards. These standards, which were not issued as regulations by any government agency, were introduced by the Obama administration to address flooding impacts "anticipated to increase over time due to the effects of climate change and other threats", according to Obama's executive order.^[16][17]

EPA to review automobile emission standards (August 2017)[edit]

On August 10, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would consider whether to loosen greenhouse gas emission standards for cars, as well as whether to apply new standards to cars produced in 2021. The plan, passed under the Obama administration, requires an industry-wide fuel economy standard of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 and is planned to affect cars between 2022 and 2025. The EPA said it was taking comments regarding the proposed changes and would decide by April 1, 2018, whether the Obama-era standards are appropriate. In March 2017, President Trump said he would roll back fuel economy goals finalized by the Obama administration.^[11]

Withdrawal from Paris agreement (June 2017)[edit]

See also: Federal policy on the Paris Climate Agreement, 2017

On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Under the agreement, signatory countries pledge to reduce carbon dioxide and similar emissions in an effort to limit human-caused climate change. Trump argued that the agreement was unfair to the United States, would reduce jobs, and would have little effect on global temperatures if fully implemented. Trump announced that he would either renegotiate the agreement's terms or negotiate a new agreement favorable to the United States. In addition, Trump said the United States would cease payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations-managed plan to finance climate change mitigation efforts and emissions reduction programs for developing countries.^{[18][19][20][21][22]}

Under the agreement, which was agreed to by the Obama administration in April 2016, signatory countries agreed to a long-term goal of keeping an increase in average global temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. Each signatory nation has a non-legally binding emissions target for carbon dioxide and similar emissions under the agreement. Industrialized countries, such as the United Kingdom, are required to finance the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, which had a goal of providing $100 billion each year to developing or industrializing countries for climate change purposes by the year 2020.^[23][24]

Proposed repeals of methane regulation[edit]

See also: Federal policy on methane regulation, 2017

On July 25, 2017, the U.S. Department of the Interior formally proposed to repeal the methane rule issued by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to limit methane emissions at oil and natural gas production sites on federal land. The rule would have required oil and gas operators to receive BLM approval for fracking on federal land; require BLM verification of well casing for safety and adequacy; and notify the BLM of and make publicly available all non-trade secret chemicals used during fracking. In its proposed repeal, the department argued that the 2015 rule is duplicative of existing state regulations and would cost the oil and gas industry up to $47 million per year.^[25]

On June 13, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to delay for two years the implementation of a rule limiting methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations on private land. The EPA rule was issued in May 2016 under the Obama administration. The rule would require oil and gas operators to follow federal standards for equipment and employee certification and to limit the flaring and venting of methane at drilling sites. Under the delay, oil and gas operators are not required to comply with the rule. The EPA first announced that it would formally review and rescind its methane rule in April 2017.^[26][27]

On July 31, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 9-2 decision ordered the EPA to enforce the Obama administration's 2016 methane rule. The judges ruled on July 3, 2017, that the EPA could not delay the rule's enforcement (see the paragraph below for details). Neither ruling affects the EPA's April 2017 decision to begin repealing the rule administratively.^[28]

Executive order on Clean Power Plan (March 2017)[edit]

See also: Clean Power Plan and Clean Power Plan political timeline

On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider formally repealing the Clean Power Plan, a federal rule finalized in 2015 aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and similar emissions from existing oil, coal, and natural gas-fired power plants. The rule was issued by the Obama administration to reduce emissions that may contribute to human-caused global warming. Additionally, Trump's executive order lifted the U.S. Department of the Interior's moratorium on new coal mine leases on federal land. Trump said that the executive order is aimed at ending the war on coal, a term used by opponents of the Obama administration's climate and energy regulations, which they argue will lead to the closure of coal-fired power plants and eliminate jobs in the coal industry. Trump promised during the campaign to reverse regulations on coal mining and coal-based electricity generation.^[29]

Opponents of the Clean Power Plan, such as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, argue that the rule would lead to higher energy prices and fewer jobs and would have no meaningful effect on rising global temperatures associated with global warming. Proponents of the plan, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, argue that the rule is necessary to reduce coal, oil, and natural gas use, which they argue contributes to human-caused global warming, and would require the U.S. energy system shift to greater use of wind and solar energy.^[30][31][32]

Overview of climate change policies[edit]

Paris Climate Agreement[edit]

In April 2016, the United States under President Barack Obama signed a 31-page international agreement, commonly known as the Paris Climate Agreement, at the United Nations. Signatory countries agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and similar emissions. Carbon dioxide and similar gases trap heat that helps warm the planet for human habitation and that some scientists have hypothesized contribute to human-caused global warming at increased concentrations in the atmosphere. Signatory countries agreed to a long-term goal of keeping an increase in average global temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. Signatory countries also agreed to pursue policies aimed at keeping any temperature increase at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100. Under the agreement, each nation has an emissions target, which is not legally binding. Developed countries like the United States are required to finance climate change mitigation efforts and emissions reduction programs for developing countries through the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, which had a goal of providing $100 billion each year to developing countries for climate change purposes by 2020.^[23][33]

Proponents of the agreement argue that an international climate agreement between developed and developing countries is necessary to achieve reductions in potential temperature rises and reductions in carbon dioxide and similar emissions in order to prevent potentially harmful impacts from global warming. Further, proponents argue that agreement will help spur further emissions reductions by prompting more private and government funding for renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, which emit less carbon dioxide.^[34][35]

Opponents of the agreement argue that pledges from signatory countries like the United States, China, India, Pakistan, and others will reduce global temperatures by 0.2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, which would not have a meaningful impact on global temperatures according to critics. Further, opponents argue that policies such as the Clean Power Plan, which mandates reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, would not come close in meeting the United States' pledge and would have no effect on global temperatures. Some opponents argue that policies like the Clean Power Plan will increase energy prices for U.S. households.^[36][37]

Clean Power Plan[edit]

If implemented, the Clean Power Plan would mandate state-specific carbon dioxide emissions reductions for new and existing coal, oil, and natural gas-fired power plants. Each state would have a reduction goal based on the types of power plants within its borders. The plan's objective is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to roll back the Clean Power Plan. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court placed a temporary stay on the plan's implementation so that legal challenges to the plan could proceed through the federal court system.^[38][39]

Proponents of the plan, such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, argue that it is a necessary and legal measure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to reduce human-caused global warming and climate change. Further, these proponents argue that the plan will limit oil, coal, and natural gas production and consumption and thus would require the U.S. energy system to use renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy.^[40]

Opponents of the plan, such as the American Petroleum Institute and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, argue that it is unlawful under the Clean Air Act, places burdensome costs on the energy system, and would increase energy costs for U.S. consumers. Further, these opponents argue that the plan's implementation would do little reduce potential rises in global temperatures and would make the U.S. electric grid less reliable.^[41]

2009 endangerment finding[edit]

In 2009, the EPA under the Obama administration determined that carbon dioxide and similar gases endanger public health and welfare, citing the Clean Air Act as the agency's legal basis for regulating the gases as air pollutants. If the Trump EPA decides to rescind the 2009 finding and issue a new finding determining that carbon dioxide and similar gases do not endanger public health and welfare, the Trump EPA would likely be sued and would have to defend its actions in federal court. Specifically, the Trump EPA must show that it considered all the relevant facts, made a rational connection between the relevant facts and its decision, and did not make an error in judgment. Further, the Obama EPA assembled a scientific record to support its finding, which was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009 finding, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the finding.^[7]

Trump administration officials on climate change[edit]

See also: Trump administration officials on energy and the environment

Donald Trump[edit]

• On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Under the agreement, signatory countries pledge to reduce carbon dioxide and similar emissions in an effort to limit human-caused climate change. Trump argued that the agreement was unfair to the United States, would reduce jobs, and would have little effect on global temperatures if fully implemented. Trump announced that he would either renegotiate the agreement's terms or negotiate a new agreement favorable to the United States. In addition, Trump said the United States would cease payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations-managed plan to finance climate change mitigation efforts and emissions reduction programs for developing countries.^{[42][43][44][45][46]}

Rex Tillerson[edit]

• When asked to share his personal views on climate change during his confirmation hearing, Tillerson said, “I came to the conclusion a few years ago that the risk of climate change does exist and that the consequences of it could be serious enough that action should be taken. The type of action seems to be where the largest areas of debate exist in the public discourse. I think it’s important to recognize that the U.S. has done a pretty good job.” Sen. Bob Corker (R-S.C.) then asked if Tillerson believed that human activity contributed to climate change, to which Tillerson responded, “The increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is having an effect. Our ability to predict that effect is very limited.”^[47]

• In 2007, Tillerson began working to reduce ExxonMobil’s carbon emissions. In a speech, he said, “While there are a range of possible outcomes, the risk posed by rising greenhouse gas emissions could prove to be significant. So it has been ExxonMobil's view for some time that it is prudent to take action while accommodating the uncertainties that remain.”^[48]
• In a 2009 speech, Tillerson advocated for a global carbon tax, a proposal at odds with the 2016 Republican Party platform. He said, “Finally, there is another potential advantage to the direct-tax, market-cost approach. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.”^[49]

Scott Pruitt[edit]

• On March 9, 2017, Scott Pruitt said on CNBC's "Squawk Box" that he did not agree that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming and that additional scientific study is needed to measure the impact of human activity on global warming and climate change. When asked whether he agreed that carbon dioxide (CO₂) was a primary contributor to changes in the climate, Pruitt said, "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's [carbon dioxide] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." Pruitt's statement was contrary to the EPA's webpage (as of March 9, 2017) on the causes of climate change, which stated that "Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change." When asked whether he would revise the EPA's determination in 2009 that carbon dioxide and similar gases were contributors to potentially human-caused climate change, Pruitt said the issue may be addressed by the EPA in the future but said that he believes Congress should also address the issue.^[50]
• Regarding the theory of human-caused climate change and policies to address it, Pruitt and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (R) wrote in the conservative publication National Review on May 17, 2016, “Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy, and global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress.”^[51][52]

Rick Perry[edit]

• In a June 19, 2017, appearance on CNBC's SquakBox, when asked if carbon dioxide is the main contributor to global warming and climate change, U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said, "No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in." Perry added, "The fact is this shouldn't be a debate about, 'Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?' Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?"^[53]

Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Donald Trump climate change. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Footnotes[edit]

v • e President Donald Trump's policies Overviews Donald Trump • Donald Trump presidential Cabinet • Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration Domestic policy Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues Economic affairs and regulations Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade Foreign affairs and national security Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity