Trump Administration
How Trump Is Boosting Clean Energy Everywhere Else
It’s partly the Iran war. But there’s also another reason.
One of the winners from Trump’s presidency has been the clean energy industry. He’s had some success in his U.S. campaign to slow clean tech, but the global picture is quite different. If anything, Trump is boosting the energy transition outside the United States. We are still the world’s largest economy, but we’re only 15% of global GDP (measured by purchasing power parity). The rest of the world no longer dances to our tune.
The Iran War has been Trump’s most notable contribution to the global energy transition. Chinese solar exports doubled in a single month, an incredible surge. The war has been a sobering lessen to many countries about the dangers of relying on fossil fuels.
Trump versus Cost-Benefit Analysis
EPA’s disavowal of CBA is the culmination of a longer assault.
EPA recently said it would no longer try to quantify the harms done by the two most serious, widespread air pollutants. Given that these are the most fully understood of all environmental impacts, it’s not clear what future regulations, if any, might be still subject to cost benefit analysis. This didn’t come out of the blue. Rather, it is the culmination of a series of steps that began when Trump took office in 2017. By 2018, Trump’s executive orders and other administration actions had led me to write a post about “the rise of benefit-blind analysis.” Little did I know what was coming down the road.
CONTINUE READINGTrump’s FEMA Review
Trump’s FEMA Council has reported back. Its basic strategy is flawed.
After much delay, Trump’s FEMA Council has reported back. While the report has some good ideas, much of it resolves around the same strategy: move current problems from the federal government to the states rather than fixing them. Moving responsibilities around doesn’t make them go away. And the reality is that many states will be unable to manage these tasks efficiently. They also lack the federal government’s capacity and economies of scale. And while the federal government will do less itself, it will become more intrusive on state operations, so there’s no clear gain in terms of federalism.
CONTINUE READINGThe 2026 Election and the Environment
Trump will still be able to take a lot of anti-environmental actions. But not as many as today.
I published a post a week ago about prospects for the upcoming 2026 elections. I didn’t say much, however, about why the results will matter for the environment. No matter what happens electorally, Trump will still be in the White House and able to use executive powers to favor fossil fuels and bulldoze environmental protections. Nevertheless, the elections could still make a real difference in environmental terms. Even just taking the House would matter, but there are additional potential environmental gains if there are power shifts in the Senate or governorships.
The best way to understand the shifts is probably to look at what Trump has been able to do with the support of Congress and then consider how the situation would shift if Democrats take one or both Houses.
The 2026 Election: Six Months to Go
Here’s what things look like now, but a lot could change.
Six months is a long time in politics, especially in the Trump era. What we can say at this point is that, compared with last November, the landscape has shifted toward the Democrats. They would now be favored to win the House, although that’s not a certainty. Republicans still clearly have edge in winning the Senate, but it’s a smaller edge than it was six months ago. Control of the House would allow Democrats to block further anti-environmental legislation, open investigations into Trump’s rollbacks, and potentially bargain for some pro-environmental provisions. Control of the Senate, while less likely, would also allow them to block appointments of extremist anti-environmentalist judges and officials.
CONTINUE READINGRoundup at the Supreme Court
Bayer and its allies in the Trump Administration got their day in court.
Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell. As discussed in a previous blog post, the broader context of the case is significant even though the question before the Court was a narrow one: “Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the …
Continue reading “Roundup at the Supreme Court”
CONTINUE READINGBending Under Pressure
Every now and then, the Trump Administration shows signs of reluctantly giving in to reality.
The Trump Administration’s basic stance has been to pursue ideological purity all costs, beginning with the “shock and awe” campaign of the first year. Don’t expect miracles, but there are at least a few signs that the Administration is tempering that strategy. It’s a bit comforting to see indications that reality is slowly sinking in. It’s also evidence that resistance to Trump policies isn’t futile.
Any trend toward saner policies is likely to be very limited. For instance, Trump and his supporters are too invested in climate denial to ever admit that climate change is a serious problem. The best we might hope for is that they ease up just a little on their war against clean energy. There are at least some hints that this may be starting to happen.
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding the Energy Dominance Agenda
What does this key concept in Trump’s energy policy actually mean?
The term “energy dominance” is at the core of the Trump Administration’s energy and environmental policies. But hat does it mean? Trump fleshed out the concept of energy dominance when he proclaimed October to be “National Energy Dominance Month.” (He forgot to issue the proclamation until halfway through the month, meaning it got even less attention than it might have otherwise received. Still, it unpacks some of his thinking in a useful way. Below, I’ll try to tease out answers to some of the key questions.
CONTINUE READINGTrump’s Slump
The Trump regime is losing ground, creating new policy opportunities.
Trump’s term began with brutal attacks on environment and clean energy policies, but he now longer looks unstoppable. Dems are likely to make major gains in the mid-terms, consumers are deeply unhappy, and his Iran War drags on. These setbacks create openings to push back against his “energy dominance” agenda. Outside the U.S., his effort to expand fossil fuel use is failing. Domestically, there are now openings to blunt his attacks on clean tech and prepare the ground for new policies when he leaves office.
CONTINUE READINGThe Future of the Colorado
There’s not enough water to go around, but there’s no agreement about what to do.
The Colorado River provides water to 40 million people and about 5.5 million acres of irrigated farmland. There’s only so much water to go around, so how to divide up the water has been hotly disputed for over a century. The previous agreement has come unstuck, but finding a replacement has proved devilishly difficult. I suspect that the Feds would rather avoid this political hot-potato through a state agreement. So far, however, state negotiations haven’t been successful. Maybe the impending threat of a federal mandate will light a fire under the negotiations. Otherwise, we are probably guaranteed years of litigation while the river runs dry.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
