14 Nov 2016: Forum

Obama’s Environmental Legacy:
How Much Can Trump Undo?

Few groups were as shocked and chagrined by Donald Trump’s victory as the environmental community. Yale Environment 360 asked environmentalists, academics, and pro-business representatives just how far Trump might roll back President Obama’s environmental initiatives.

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to scrap U.S. involvement in the Paris climate accords, undo President Obama’s signature piece of domestic environmental legislation — the Clean Power Plan — and eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency. These moves would effectively decimate what Obama considers one of his greatest achievements — his efforts to slow global warming. But are Trump’s threats just campaign rhetoric? How far could the new president actually go in reversing the accomplishments of the Obama years? Seven experts weigh in.

Mike Brune
Mike Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.
Campaigning is one thing, and governing is another. Now, Trump must choose whether he will continue to deny the climate crisis and stand completely alone in the world. His campaign position will result in significant international blowback and massive resistance here at home from environmental and public health advocates if he refuses to face reality. But he could also shift course now, take a different path, and support investments in the fastest-growing sector in the U.S. economy — clean energy. In fact, those investments already have bipartisan backing.

Even as president, there are some things Trump can’t change: He can’t change the fundamental fact that clean energy is now cheaper than dirty fuels like coal, natural gas, and nuclear power all over the country. And he can’t change the fact that grassroots activists like the Sierra Club will keep fighting to retire coal plants and replace them with clean energy. We defeated most of the new coal plants proposed during the George W. Bush administration — 184 to be exact — with grassroots power, and we can and will do similar work under the Trump administration.

The markets and the American people are moving this nation beyond dirty fuels to clean energy, and Donald Trump can’t reverse that tide. And as we’ve seen this week, his position certainly will not stop the rest of the world from moving forward to safeguard our planet and seize the incredible economic benefits of clean energy.

Andy Revkin
Andy Revkin, author of the New York Times’ Dot Earth blog and a Senior Fellow for Environmental Understanding at Pace University.
I think there’s potential for significant damage, particularly on policies related to public lands, regulation, and, of course, any issue that would rise to the level of the Supreme Court. Here’s the downside: Given a hostile Congress, President Obama had to resort to administrative steps on climate policy, energy efficiency, and the like, which means Trump can move swiftly in some cases to undo or greatly slow certain initiatives — ranging from fuel-mileage standards to fracking rules. But as Paul Voosen has pointed out in Science, it’s easier to do that with pending rules (fracking) than those that have already gone through review (the Clean Power Plan).

There are limits, though. The Endangered Species Act, for instance, has remained immune to congressional meddling, although budgets can be cut. On the grandest challenge of all, global warming, I wrote this week that the momentum for fossil fuels and the shift in the U.S. away from the worst fuel, coal, limit what any president — for or against action — can do. Much depends on how Trump chooses to move from sound bites to real-world policies. Indeed, some of his campaign pledges — for instance boosting both coal and natural gas production — never made sense. More gas production will further undercut the economics of coal. That means that much rests on the advisors he draws on. In his acceptance speech, the president-elect said he was eager to hear from those who opposed his election. Will he listen? That will be the test.

Christine Harbin
Christine Harbin, director of federal affairs and strategic initiatives for Americans for Prosperity.
President-elect Trump will bring with him a starkly different vision on energy and environmental policy than his predecessor. In the spirit of "draining the swamp," the Trump-Pence administration will likely abandon the climate mitigation policies of the Obama administration in favor of energy policies that promote job creation and energy affordability and reliability.

We can expect to see in his first term a significant effort to undo overreaching environmental regulations. First on the chopping block will be the EPA's Clean Power Plan, a rule forcing states to cut carbon emissions. The president-elect was vocal on the campaign trail about repealing this harmful rule, and his running mate blocked its implementation in Indiana as governor.

The U.S. has several ways to exit the Paris agreement on climate change, and it will be interesting to see which route the President-elect chooses. Perhaps he will use executive action to withdraw or perhaps he will submit it to the Senate to die on the floor. Withdrawing from the Paris accords will be in the best interest of the U.S. because meeting its aggressive emissions targets would require extreme policy changes that would harm overall U.S. economic growth, especially in the manufacturing sector.

Carbon taxes will be off the table for the foreseeable future, too.

President-elect Trump's interest in engaging in comprehensive tax reform would also have implications on energy issues. Cleaning up the tax code would involve eliminating tax provisions benefiting special interests in renewable energy industries such as wind and solar.

 Michael Gerrard
Michael Gerrard, professor and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, and Chair of the Faculty of Columbia’s Earth Institute.
Before the election, the world was on the precipice of not being able to fulfill the Paris climate goal of keeping global average temperature increases to between 1.5 and 2 degrees C. The Nationally Determined Contributions that almost all countries had pledged did not add up to nearly enough. The U.S. pledge centered on the Clean Power Plan; even with that, we still had a long way to go to meet the promise for 2025. Far more, still unspecified actions would be needed for the decades after that.

Trump has pledged to kill the Clean Power Plan, and he has several paths for doing so, ranging from asking the Supreme Court (which by then may include a Trump appointee) to declare it invalid, to formally rescinding it after required public notice, to simply telling the EPA not to enforce it.

Without the Clean Power Plan and the other aggressive actions that Hillary Clinton might have taken, the U.S. will surely miss its targets. Without the vigorous participation of the world’s largest economy and historically largest emitter, other countries may also slack off. The chances of meeting the Paris goal seem even more remote. We need to devote increased attention to adaptation — to coping with the increasingly severe climate changes that are going to hit us.

May Boeve
May Boeve, executive director of 350.org.
We can all imagine what a climate denier heading up the EPA will do to the Clean Power Plan and anything having to do with clean air, water, and our public lands. It could be devastating, and gratefully many of our allies are already at work planning how to respond. Yet there is a deeper problem at work. We know that a society-wide mobilization is required to build the infrastructure for the renewable energy revolution. And we know that this same massive investment in the public sector can be a path out of the economic devastation that so many voters experience — many of whom saw Trump as the solution. There was an opportunity to tie the pathway out of climate catastrophe and inequality — and towards greater democracy — together. In so doing, we'd build the kind of movement we actually need to address many of our challenges at one time.

Regardless of what is included in Trump's infrastructure agenda, we can be sure that averting climate chaos and further inequality will not be the stated goals. Instead, we will encounter more corporate giveaways, more reliance on fossil fuels, and a deeply steeper path to any kind of compliance with our Paris commitments, and with the commitment to stay below 1.5 degrees C.

 Bob Perciasepe
Bob Perciasepe, president of C2ES, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
It’s too soon to tell exactly what steps the next administration will take. The rhetoric of campaigning doesn’t always match the realities of governing. We urge president-elect Trump’s transition team to take the time to hear from a broad range of perspectives on environmental and energy issues. They’ll find that a majority of Americans across the political spectrum support stronger climate action.

They’ll find that cities and states are in action because they’re already experiencing the impacts of climate change and see strong economic benefits in clean energy and transportation. They’ll find that business leaders recognize climate costs and see that the modern infrastructure and advanced technologies we need to cut emissions and strengthen climate resilience will create jobs at home and position U.S. firms to better compete in the emerging clean-energy economy.

Cities, states, and businesses are already improving energy efficiency and investing in clean energy and clean transportation. We could do far more with federal leadership, but the momentum we’ve seen will continue, because it’s driven in part by market forces. Around the world, support for climate action is stronger than ever. Virtually every country has committed to taking climate action and I expect will keep moving forward because they feel the impacts of climate change, they see the health benefits to their own citizens of reducing pollution, and they see the economic opportunities in a clean-energy transition.
Robert N. Stavins
Robert N. Stavins, Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government at Harvard University and director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.
In November 2012, Donald Trump tweeted that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.” Twitter messages cannot be taken as reliable signals of likely future policies, but Mr. Trump followed up during the campaign with repeated pledges to reverse all of President Obama’s actions on climate change. That includes canceling United States participation in the Paris climate agreement and abandoning the Clean Power Plan, a mainstay of the Obama administration’s approach to achieving its CO2 emissions reduction target under the Paris agreement.

So, if we take Mr. Trump at his word (a risky proposition, I admit), he will seek to pull the country out of the Paris pact. Or the administration can simply disregard America’s pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 26 to 28 percent below the 2005 level by 2025. What will other key countries, including the world’s largest emitter, China, as well as India and Brazil, do if the United States reneges on its pledge? The result could be that the Paris agreement unravels, taking it from the 97 percent of global emissions currently covered by the pact to little more than the European Union’s 10 percent share.

If he lives up to his campaign rhetoric, Mr. Trump may be able to reverse course on climate change policy, increasing the threat to the planet, and in the process destroying much of the Obama legacy in this realm.

POSTED ON 14 Nov 2016 IN Climate Climate Energy Oceans Policy & Politics Pollution & Health Science & Technology Antarctica and the Arctic North America 


All of it, thank goodness.

The politicization of the immature and primitive field known as climatology has produced aberrant and harmful public policies.

Correlation is not causation.
There is no evidence of harmful global warming.
Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant.
Posted by John Garrett on 14 Nov 2016

Christine Harbin, shame on you.
Posted by Beverly Brown on 14 Nov 2016

All of it, its about time the fraud of climate change
comes to an end.
Posted by Tony R Elliott on 15 Nov 2016

If Trump has a true sense of business he will realize what great
economic opportunity climate change/the Paris agreement means to
the US Economy. He does not have to believe in it just that the rest
of the world will be moving forward and investing billions and if he
is a business man he will recognize the opportunities.
Posted by P Schmidt-Pathmann on 15 Nov 2016

We don't have much time avoiding the worst
outcomes of global warming. 2016 will be the
hottest year in the history of instrumental records.
Current Arctic temperature anomalys are
astounding. If we want to keep temperature
incresase below 2 degress above preindustrial level,
we need to keep within 900 bilion tons carbon
budget. Trump presidency will likely reverse the
progress that has already been made. I hope he
won't succeed.
Posted by tkloszewski on 16 Nov 2016

If Trump follows through on his campaign statements, thus essentially canceling the federal government's commitment to address global warming, action at the state and regional level will be more critical than ever. States like Connecticut can play an important role in maintaining as much momentum as possible and demonstrating to federal policymakers that progress is possible and practical.
Posted by Don Strait on 17 Nov 2016

Americans for Prosperity has such a narrow and
shortsighted view of the world. Could you and
your fellow economists possibly imagine that
prosperity is impossible with a shattered
landscape, unrelenting energy development and
market-driven solutions? What utter nonsense.

It's one thing to get government out of our lives,
but completely another to get corporations even
deeper into our lives and livelihood. No thanks!

Given Trumps narrow "win" and the fact that only
about half the electorate bothered to vote, he
and the GOP don't have a mandate to do

Some of us are gearing up to battle you and
your reductionist mindset every step of the way.
Posted by Kyle G on 17 Nov 2016

President elect Trump is a businessman who is going to Make America Great Again. He has to be convinced that Increased Energy Efficiency creates many jobs and is good for America's Economy.
The Obama administration had a goal to kill the coal industry. They have spent Billions on the CCS technology that is so expensive to apply that without government funding it is not feasible.
The affordable technologies of Carbon Capture Utilization were not supported because it did not fit in with their plans. This technology transforms the CO2 out of the combusted exhaust into useful - saleable products. Many full time jobs in a number of industries will be created. A coal fired power plant will put less CO2 into the atmosphere than a natural gas power plant.
Convince President Trump of this and let's Make America Great Again and as a bonus let's help the Environment.
Posted by Sid Abma on 17 Nov 2016

18 states support the Clean Power plan. They
represent almost 50\% of the total US population
and GDP. Mayors of 30 cities representing 35 million
citizens have pledge ambitious targets on emissions
reductions and renewables. These two networks will
lead the way in emissions reductions based on the
strong political will of taxpayers and consumers
The only sector that benefits from increased use of
fossil fuels is the energy companies, and their
friends in state and national legislatures

Posted by Margaret Perkins on 24 Nov 2016

Ronald Reagan campaigned for the presidency on
a platform at least as aggressive, and arguably
more stridently critical of environmental initiative
as Donald Trump. Reagan got nowhere. Almost 40
years later the president-elect encounters one of
the most adept, scientifically qualified, legally
prepared, and well-financed opposition movements
in history -- the American and global
environmental communities and their
collaborators. And the American and global
environmental media in all of its forms and on all
of its platforms. The board rooms and executive
offices of every national, regional, international,
and local environmental organization on Earth are
likely to revel in a new era of Trump-inspired
activism -- and fundraising -- if the White House
and Congress pursue a really stupid agenda that
defies reason and the green momentum of our
Posted by Keith Schneider on 07 Dec 2016

Could all contributors here who claim that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax provide strong scientific evidence with peer-reviewed references – (that excludes Youtube videos, Facebook posts, blogs and the likes), please. Otherwise those comments are utterly useless as they contradict consensus statements of all major National Academies of Science, of thousands and thousands of well-trained specialized scientists and even of normally hesitant governments who had to accept scientific findings. If you can't provide scientific evidence, all you do is spreading doubts and lies in the name of very dark interest groups. Play by the rules of science if you want to have a scientific debate.
Posted by Christian Schwägerl on 02 Jan 2017


Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

Email address 
Please type the text shown in the graphic.



How Far Can Technology Go
To Stave Off Climate Change?

With carbon dioxide emissions continuing to rise, an increasing number of experts believe major technological breakthroughs —such as CO2 air capture — will be necessary to slow global warming. But without the societal will to decarbonize, even the best technologies won’t be enough.

Republican Who Led EPA Urges
Confronting Trump on Climate

William K. Reilly, a Republican and one-time head of the EPA, is dismayed that a climate change skeptic has been named to lead his former agency. But in a Yale e360 interview, he insists environmental progress can be made despite resistance from the Trump administration.

How Costa Rica Is Moving
Toward a Green Economy

With nearly all its electricity generated from renewables, Costa Rica has now set its sights on decarbonizing the transportation sector. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, green-energy activist Monica Araya explains how her country can wean itself entirely off fossil fuels.

From Obama’s Top Scientist,
Words of Caution on Climate

As President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren has been instrumental in developing climate policy. In an interview with Yale e360, Holdren talks about the urgency of the climate challenge and why he hopes the next administration will not abandon efforts to address it.

Why U.S. Coal Industry and
Its Jobs Are Not Coming Back

President-elect Donald J. Trump has vowed to revive U.S. coal production and bring back thousands of jobs. But it’s basic economics and international concern about climate change that have crushed the American coal industry, not environmental regulations.



What Pope Francis Should Say
In His Upcoming UN Address

Pope Francis will speak to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25 about poverty, the environment, and sustainable development. In a Yale Environment 360 forum, seven leading thinkers on the environment and religion describe what they would like to hear the pope say.

Top Climate Scientists Assess
Latest Report from U.N. Panel

Yale Environment 360 asked some leading climate scientists to discuss what they consider to be the most noteworthy or surprising findings in the recently released report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s working group on the physical science of a warming world.

Forum: How Daring is
Obama's New Climate Plan?

President Obama has unveiled a proposal to combat global warming that would, for the first time, regulate carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants. Yale Environment 360 asked a group of experts to assess the president’s climate strategy.

Forum: Assessing Obama’s
Record on the Environment

When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, environmentalists were optimistic that their issues would finally become a priority at the White House. So how is Obama doing? Yale Environment 360 asked a group of environmentalists and energy experts for their verdicts on the president's performance.

Forum: Just How Safe
Is ‘Fracking’ of Natural Gas?

New technologies for freeing natural gas from underground shale formations have led to a hydraulic fracturing boom across the U.S. that is now spreading to other countries. In a Yale Environment 360 forum, eight experts discuss whether “fracking” can be done without serious harm to water and air quality and what environmental safeguards may be needed.


Forum: Is Extreme Weather
Linked to Global Warming?

In the past year, the world has seen a large number of extreme weather events, from the Russian heat wave last summer, to the severe flooding in Pakistan, to the recent tornadoes in the U.S. In a Yale Environment 360 forum, a panel of experts weighs in on whether the wild weather may be tied to increasing global temperatures.


As Copenhagen Talks Near,
What Are Prospects for Success?

For months, hopes that a climate treaty would be signed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference have been raised, then dashed, then raised again. Now, with prospects waning that a binding accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be reached this year, ten environmental leaders and climate experts outline for Yale Environment 360 what they believe can still be accomplished at Copenhagen.

The Waxman-Markey Bill:
A Good Start or a Non-Starter?

As carbon cap-and-trade legislation works it way through Congress, the environmental community is intensely debating whether the Waxman-Markey bill is the best possible compromise or a fatally flawed initiative. Yale Environment 360 asked 11 prominent people in the environmental and energy fields for their views on this controversial legislation.

Putting a Price on Carbon:
An Emissions Cap or a Tax?

The days of freely dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are coming to an end, but how best to price carbon emissions remains in dispute. As the U.S. Congress debates the issue, Yale Environment 360 asked eight experts to discuss the merits of a cap-and-trade system versus a carbon tax.

A Green Agenda for the
President’s First 100 Days

Environmentalists – from Bill McKibben and Paul Hawken, to Fred Krupp and Frances Beinecke – offer President Obama their advice on the priorities he should set for the first 100 days of his administration.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

A look at how acidifying oceans could threaten the Dungeness crab, one of the most valuable fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Watch the video.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.


An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

An indigenous tribe’s deadly fight to save its ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest from logging.
Learn more.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Choco rainforest Cacao
Residents of the Chocó Rainforest in Ecuador are choosing to plant cacao over logging in an effort to slow deforestation.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.