Climate Change Opinion

Take the Long View on Environmental Issues in the Age of Trump

Although climate and environmental regulations are at risk in the short term, Trump's disruption of traditional party positions could help to break decades of stalled efforts to address climate change.


Donald Trump will be the next president. What will this mean for the environment?

Normally, we rely on a politician’s past behavior to frame the future. However, we do not have any record of environmental policy or practice on which to base an analysis of what to expect. Our best information relies on the appointments to his transition team and interpretation of statements he made in the latter part of his campaign.

Judging by these appointments and statements, I see a strong chance that President Obama’s climate policy will be rapidly disassembled. How do we face this head-on?

The answer is a simple statement. To develop an effective U.S. response to climate change, we must break the politicization of science-based knowledge.

To accomplish this, however, we must embrace the complexities of science and politics and think beyond any matrix or formulaic solution. We know that effective and sustaining climate policy must be bipartisan. Taking a long view, Trump’s disruption of traditional party positions potentially provides entryways to break decades of stalled efforts to address climate change in the United States.

Focusing on this potential long-term opportunity may be the key to preserving the environment beyond the age of Trump. First, we need to recognize that forces in the new administration will seek to undo not only recent gains in climate policy but also decades of environmental regulations. But with climate change so directly tied to economic and national security, our future societal success will compel us to tackle climate change as part of our political and cultural behavior.

Rollback of the Clean Power Plan

One of President-elect Trump’s first actions was to announce Myron Ebell as part of the presidential transition team. Ebell is director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Ebell has a long history of denying the consensus analyses of climate scientists and the economic risks of climate change. CEI holds the position that U.S. environmental regulations are onerous and damaging to the economy. Ebell has the particular charge of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and as a matter of record, Ebell and CEI oppose regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the EPA.

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which is focused on electricity generation, is a fundamental part of his administration’s efforts aimed at curbing carbon dioxide emissions. The Clean Power Plan rests on the Clean Air Act along with the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision that requires the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant if found that carbon dioxide emissions harm human health. Ebell’s appointment signals, therefore, an administrative priority to revoke the Clean Power Plan.

Goodbye Paris Agreement

President-elect Trump promises to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which was established within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The U.S. commitment to the Paris Agreement was achieved by executive signature, in contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, which required ratification by the Senate.

The Paris Agreement, therefore, carries the same perceived baggage of executive overreach as the Clean Power Plan. This makes the Paris Agreement a clear target.

Although actual withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would be difficult to achieve in the near term, the Trump administration could easily fail to implement any of the commitments the Obama administration made under the agreement. What’s more, some of Trump’s advisers are already calling to cut down “politically correct environmental monitoring,” including NASA programs that support climate change research.

These steps would, minimally, establish the United States as an unreliable partner and insert doubt into global climate change policy for many years.

The Bigger Storm to Come: Dissolution of Environmental Laws?

Undoing the Clean Power Plan could be just the beginning. Following Trump’s rhetoric, we must be prepared to face efforts aimed at weakening the Clean Air Act itself. Also in the crosshairs are many other environmental statutes passed in the 1970s, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In terms of enduring impacts, weakening of these underlying statutes will be more consequential than scuttling the Clean Power Plan. Alterations or repeals of these laws will meet with fierce political resistance and litigations. However, the executive vigor and legislative wherewithal are in position to do considerable damage as well as to appoint and confirm judges sympathetic to environmental regulation as damaging to business and economic growth.

Preservation of these statutes must not get lost in the potential clamor over the Clean Power Plan. They are the foundation of environmental policy and were the response to dangerous environmental degradation. With hostility toward these regulations at the federal level, vigilant focus on these laws is required at the state and local level as well as by the broader public.

A World Stage

A weakened U.S. involvement in the Paris Agreement has many consequences. Mutsuyoshi Nishimura, former lead Japanese climate change diplomat, points to worldwide backlash, including protests. Ceding to China the moral high ground on climate change could also have fallout.

The battle to preserve our end of the Paris Agreement is important and necessary. But we must not lose sight of the need to preserve our commitment to the UNFCCC, which provides the substance that made the Paris Agreement possible.

The UNFCCC is an international treaty on climate change that was adopted by the United Nations in May of 1992. It was signed and ratified by the United States in 1992 and went into effect in 1994. The treaty specified that countries that sign hold a commitment to reporting greenhouse gas emissions, expressing intent to reduce emissions, avoiding dangerous climate change, and maintaining economic development.

The linking of greenhouse gases, environmental regulation, and economic development plays directly into the policies that have been described as onerous by Ebell. The UNFCCC is the foundation of international policy, and candidate Trump expressed animosity to “U.N. global warming programs.”

More so than the Paris Agreement, it would be difficult for the United States to withdraw from the UNFCCC. We need, however, to move beyond polls that show that the U.S. supports international response to climate change. Instead, we must strategically plan ways in which we can ensure that public officials keep their promises to U.S. participation on this foundational treaty.

What Way Forward?

Progress in the face of federal barriers relies on appealing to common causes and individual people rather than to political parties. In this way, we have an advantage compared to where we were at the beginning of the Obama administration. During the past 8 years, we’ve seen significant changes in how people perceive climate change in the United States.

Notably, concerns and responses to climate change have expanded at state and local levels. Historic droughts and floods, the occurrence of persistent record high temperatures, and changes along the coastlines due to sea level rise have revealed unprecedented vulnerabilities.

Emerging observational evidence is that weather-related threats and risk are increasing. When response occurs locally, it is typically bipartisan and has corporate and faith-based participation.

An important policy goal is to advance the many voices of those on the ground responding to climate-related vulnerabilities. Likewise, organizations that seek to affect climate change policy should focus more on action-oriented efforts on local to regional scales, rather than mire their primary resources in the political gamesmanship that will dominate the federal level.

We need to move away from the situation where the farmer, the Republican, the Evangelical, or even entire cities already coping with climate change are treated as novel examples. We are all part of a constituency responding to weather that is changing from generation to generation.

Nowhere is this mainstream emergence more critical than at the climate and energy intersection.

Countries, including the United States, are growing their use of renewable energy while growing their economies. What’s more, the economics of fossil fuel extraction are changing rapidly. ExxonMobil is moving to write down its dirtiest reserves and has stated support for the Paris Agreement. Companies are actively seeking policy stability in the face of compelling political and scientific evidence. Market-based energy and climate policy, such as that advocated by Conservative politician Bob Inglis, is as viable and as robust as any other potential strategy.

But challenges lie at every turn. The sound defeat of the state of Washington’s carbon tax initiative shows that even in a solidly Democratic state, the public does not easily advance climate change policy or regulation.

Appealing to Security

As countries, including ours, develop increased predictive skill on the effects of climate change, those with access to those forecasts learn to use those predictions. This knowledge provides competitive advantage not only in business but also in anticipation of national security interests.

Drought in the Middle East amplifies political strife. Several nations scramble in the Arctic for territory and resources as the sea ice melts. In business, multinational corporations face supply chain challenges, water availability, and customers demanding that sustainability and the cost to the environment be taken into account.

It is reasonable to expect that at some point, future trade deals will penalize those who most damage the climate. So we must place these issues of environmental security and concrete information for real-world applications front and center in climate research.

We must also break the notion that environmental research and prediction are inseparably wed to environmental regulation. Both absence and excess of regulation have negative societal and economic consequences. Optimal environmental regulation benefits society, including the viability, sustainability, and security of businesses and their customers.

Focusing on the Long Term

Any effective, sustaining climate and energy policy will have to be bipartisan. To gain this bipartisan support, we must break the link between science-based policy decisions and political and cultural self-identification.

We must take direct measures to reclaim science-based knowledge from partisan interests. Science has been made partisan with political intent; we require similar intent to reclaim it.

To the climate change community, the initial actions of President-elect Trump on climate and climate policy are decentering, disconcerting, and bleak. Undoubtedly, however, Hillary Clinton’s election would have maintained the status quo of climate change as a partisan issue.

President-elect Trump, on the other hand, has proved to be difficult to characterize, resistant to traditional partisan classification, and prone to swift changes of position. Trump will challenge his party and disrupt party norms. With this disruption, political walls become porous.

At that point, it becomes possible that sources of informed influence, anchored in the substantive challenges of those who govern and those who create and sustain jobs, can enter into the administration. New coalitions of organizations become likely, which can align on solving problems rather than political warfare.

Trump’s administration can disperse President Obama’s climate change policies. However, climate change is too compelling an issue to go away. In the event that an opportunity to address climate change does not emerge during Trump’s administration, I don’t see this lack as placing us at any more of a tipping point than where we already are.

Stewards of the Future

Policy in the United States often emerges from long, difficult negotiations leading to outcomes that balance priorities, share benefits and risks, and provide flexibility for individuals and commerce. Acrimonious politics, particularly during this election cycle, have left us with little trust of individuals and institutions. The scientific method, objective analysis, and the fundamentals of logic and reason are tainted with political culture and identity.

These practices of investigation, reason, and knowledge generation, however, sit at the growth of civilization, economies, and wealth. Our ability to compete and thrive as a nation requires us to extract science-based knowledge from the realm of the political partisanship and to support knowledge-based decision-making.

We must have confidence in this future and do all we can to steward the transition from now to then.


I thank Paul Higgins of the American Meteorological Society and Paul Edwards and Matt Irish of the University of Michigan for helpful conversations and comments.

Richard B. Rood (email: [email protected]), Department of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering and School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Citation: Rood, R. B. (2016), Take the long view on environmental issues in the age of Trump, Eos, 97, Published on 01 December 2016.
© 2016. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
  • Richard B. Rood

    I would challenge one word in the first paragraph – “assumption.” My piece is based on the evidence-based “conclusion” that greenhouse warming theory is correct.

    It is interesting to me that you chose to anchor your conclusions only on the work of Angstrom in the early 20th century. Though you said that you have confirmed Angstrom’s work, I have been unable to find reference to davidlaing (2015) in the subject areas of greenhouse gas and spectroscopy.

    I do feel that there have been some pretty robust studies since 1900, and that the measurement technology has advanced. I find it difficult to believe that with all of the competition and push for verification and validation by scientists, that the, literally, many thousands of papers, since, are fools’ errands.

    Nevertheless, I defer to you on your reasons to value Angstrom’s work so highly. To my knowledge, however, Angstrom did not conclude that the greenhouse warming theory was incorrect. I believe that, ultimately, he modified the previous numbers of Arrhenius. For the benefit of other readers, I include a link to Spencer Weart’s, Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect. Weart writes a history that I value highly. He discusses why Angstrom “failed to understand that the logic of the (Angstrom’s) experiment was altogether false.”

    Thank you for your comment.

    • davidlaing

      I would, in turn, challenge one compound word in your first paragraph: “evidence-based.” A colleague of mine searched over 10,000 peer -reviewed climate-based journal articles in search of any hard-data-based studies that assessed greenhouse warming and found only Angstrom’s. There have been lots of studies on the absorptivity of IR radiation by CO2 (e.g., HITRAN database), but this is not actual warming. Can you cite any references?

      The reason that you couldn’t find references to me is that I’m a synthetic scientist, not an analytical one, and consequently I don’t publish in peer-reviewed journals. This really doesn’t matter, as it’s the hard data that’s important, not the person who displays it. I.e., you can argue with me, because I’m only human, but you can’t very well argue with hard data from the Earth system.

      The “robust studies since 1900″and the “measurement technology” have mostly gone into the HITRAN database, which, as I said, is not proof of greenhouse warming, and into computer modeling, which simply uses the Arrhenius formula as a given. Angstrom’s study and mine are, as far as I know, the only ones that actually test that theory. I invite you to prove me wrong on this.

      Angstrom has had many detractors, who have made various accusations as to his methods and his conclusions, but the fact is that he was the leading atmospheric physicist of the day, and a very careful researcher. The other important fact is that he found very little warming effect from increases in CO2 content of the atmosphere. I also found a very small warming effect from CO2. If you’d like to review my results, please Google “Interesting Climate Sensitivity Analysis.”

  • Jacob Luttio

    What about our neighbor Venus? Isn’t Venus an example of a runaway greenhouse effect? How do you explain the difference between Earth’s observed average surface temperature compared to insolation if not for the greenhouse effect?

    • davidlaing

      Venus. No, it’s really not an example of a runaway greenhouse effect, and here’s why: unlike Earth, Venus has no large natural satellite, let alone satellites at all. Moon stabilizes Earth’s rotational axis by gravitational action on Earth’s equatorial bulge. This results in a deviation of the rotational axis from perpendicularity to the ecliptic plane of no more than a degree or two from its present value.

      This is why Earth has retained its water and Venus hasn’t. Venus’s rotational axis has been free to swing between 0 and 180 degrees, and, in fact, it is now upside down. This means that the planet presents significant amounts of its polar regions to Sun during solstices, and so these regions will experience 24/7 radiation and a consequent loss of water through evaporation and photodissociation. This is reflected in the extremely high deuterium to hydrogen ration of Venus compared to Earth. On photodissociation of water, the lighter hydrogen escapes to space, whereas the heavier deuterium doesn’t. Mars is similar, but less extreme due to its distance from Sun.

      Venus’s early loss of water prevented the development of life there, which meant that no bacterial oxygen or nitrogen could enter its atmosphere, leaving it mostly composed of CO2. Both nitrogen and oxygen absorb the greater part of Sun’s highest frequency radiation, the latter by ionization and the creation and destruction of stratospheric ozone, but carbon dioxide doesn’t, thus Venus gets the full brunt of solar irradiation, but Earth does not.

      Further, Venus is a lot closer to Sun than Earth is, and it rotates very slowly (in retrograde fashion, because it’s upside down). This slow rotation means that one side of the planet is exposed to solar radiation for most of the year, which deprives it of the day-night cooling cycle present on Earth. The result of this and no circulating oceans, is very high temperatures, which are distributed around the planet by high winds.

      • Andy Epton

        I knew that Venus has a retrograde rotation and is, thus, most likely upside down. However, I have never heard that it’s rotational axis moves in such a manner that it flips completely over every so often. Where did you get this information, as I would like to look into it and maybe share it with my astronomy students if it is valid. It does, in fact, rotate slowly as you pointed out. It’s the slowest of all the planets. That does cause it to face the Sun longer on one side than the Earth does. But it has such a high albedo that very little solar radiation penetrates to the surface. The incredibly high winds do help distribute the intense temperatures around the planet, but the lack of any variation between day and night comes not from high winds but from the greenhouse effect. What little radiation makes through the clouds is absorbed by the approximately 96% CO2 atmosphere surrounding the planet. It IS a runaway greenhouse effect.
        As to your declaration that the Moon allows the Earth to maintain liquid water, this is also flawed. With the Moon, but without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature on the Earth would be well below freezing. Thus, liquid water would not exist on the surface. The Moon does not allow us to have oceans, but it does cause the tides.

        • davidlaing

          Not that it “flips over,” rather that it is free to move from one rather rigid position, as is also the case with the rotational axis of Mars, which also has no major natural satellite to stabilize its axis. The only reference I’m aware of is Laing, D., 1991, “the Earth System,” Wm C Brown, 590 pp.

          Venus does have a higher albedo than Earth’s, but it is also much closer to Sun, Also, there is no water vapor on Venus to absorb solar irradiance and very few clouds to reflect it. CO2 doesn’t absorb except in the mid- and far IR, both of which are rare in the solar spectrum.

          On what basis do you say that “the lack of any variation between day and night comes not from high winds [on Venus] but from the greenhouse effect?” Do you have actual evidence for that? As far as I know, a “greenhouse effect” hasn’t yet been proven by hard data on Earth, so why would you think there should be one on Venus?

          Earth’s temperature appears to be controlled by absorption of UV-B by the oceans, by atmospheric water vapor, and by the Chapman cycle of ozone creation and destruction (including oxygen ionization by UV-A high in the stratosphere), and to be maintained by the retardation of heat loss by the absorption of IR by water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere. Knut Angstrom (1900) and I (2015) have shown, from hard data, that the so-called “greenhouse effect” is insignificant (Google “Interesting Climate Sensitivity Analysis”). To the best of my knowledge, no hard-data studies supportive of greenhouse warming have ever been done.

          • Andy Epton

            If I’m not mistaken, I believe that Mars also exhibits seasons, which means that it too is tilted on its axis of rotation. As such, it has seasons just as Earth does. I just wanted to state that to question a point you made in an earlier statement.
            As to your insistence that the greenhouse effect isn’t verified, that’s wrong. The author of this essay linked to an article in a response to you. The article was an overview (albeit, rather detailed) of the history of the science behind global warming. I suggest you read that article. You continue to cite as your only references for your position two, and only two, studies that suggested an alternative interpretation. You, yourself, even state that you didn’t even analyze the thousands of papers for “hard-data,” but that a friend did. And this friend supposedly accounted for only one (not counting your recent study) such study. I would contend that that is not a very thorough analysis or serious consideration for refuting a fairly well established theory.
            You stated in your response to my previous statement that Venus has a high albedo but few clouds. I’m sorry, but that statement is contradictory. We know that Venus is completely shrouded in clouds which accounts for its high albedo. Also, you don’t think an atmosphere made of around 96%-97% CO2 could affect the temperature, even if you are correct (I don’t think you are) that it has no effect on Earth? Earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration is approximately 0.03% of the total atmosphere. Even if such a paltry amount has no effect on Earth (it does), surely it must have an effect on Venus.
            Finally, Mr. Laing, I am not one to attack another individual as I feel it detracts from one’s position. I am not a publishing scientist and may never be one. I am a high school science teacher with a degree in Geology. However, I am interested in such discussions as I want to help the world, not just my students, better understand the realm of science. I’m not saying that you don’t understand science. I am saying that you are doing a disservice to the climate discussion by continuing to flood message boards with the same proclamations: CO2 does not warm the climate; and you and Knut Angstrom are the only ones who have analyzed “hard-data” studies while coming to similar conclusions. Anyone who examines comments here on will find your statements consisting of the two principles I mentioned. Again, I implore you to read that history of global warming studies as he addresses Knut Angstrom’s study. I doubt you will accept it, but it can’t hurt to be more informed.

    • davidlaing

      Let me clarify my reply below, the second line of the 2nd paragraph should read “This means that when Venus’s rotational axis is 45 to 90 degrees, the planet presents…, etc.”

    • davidlaing

      Sorry, make that the third line in the second paragraph!

    • davidlaing

      Haste makes waste. “…deuterium to hydrogen ration…” should read “deuterium to hydrogen ratio…”

      • Jacob Luttio

        …and what of the correlation in Earth’s recent geologic history between atmospheric CO2 and avg. surface temperature? (Thinking about polar ice cores).

        • davidlaing

          I’m rather surprised that you don’t acknowledge the well-known principle that correlation does not mean causation. If it did, then one could very well argue that the Dow Jones Industrial Average causes global warming because both are going up at the same time.

          Incidentally, the rather poor correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 and temperature applies only to the past 100 years or so. If you look back in the geologic record, there is no obvious correlation between the two, with one exception. Colder water can hold more CO2 than warmer water, so when the oceans warm, they release CO2; when they cool, they absorb it from the atmosphere (but much more slowly). This correlation is quite obvious in the ice cores.

  • Jonathan Slavin

    As usual the climate deniers are the most vocal. The idea that some “careful experiment” done in 1900 is somehow definitive is ludicrous. There is a huge amount of data showing a) the CO2 level has been increasing steadily and b) the global temperature is rising. One only needs to read EOS to see the many examples of data indicating that human caused global warming is real and is already having broad effects including melting ice sheets, increased salinity of the oceans and sea level rise just to name a few. If you want to formulate some grand conspiracy theory wherein scientists all over the world are scheming together for some nefarious purpose, I suppose you’re free to do so. Unfortunately that doesn’t change the reality of what we all will be facing in the years to come.

  • >More so than the Paris Agreement, it would be difficult for the United States to withdraw from the UNFCCC.

    The UNFCCC has not be enacted into US domestic law and has no enforcement mechanism to punish countries which withdraw or do not comply with its terms. While it would be a tragedy for the US to withdraw or fail to comply with these agreements, the president has the unilateral and unreviewable right to dissolve executive agreements and withdraw from treaties. He can also just not comply. We do this routinely in the national security world. We must not take false comfort in the belief that international agreements without sanctions can bind an unwilling president.