3 ways Trump’s climate change agenda may differ from Obama’s

After President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office as the 45th president of the United States on Friday, America’s environmental agenda could be transformed significantly over the course of his presidency.

Whereas President Obama was a vigorous supporter in the global fight against climate change, Trump has claimed climate change to be a “hoax” created by China to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

But in a November meeting with New York Times reporters and editors, Trump appeared to soften his stance, saying there was “some” human connectivity to climate change.

In an effort to make America energy independent, Trump’s administration will focus heavily on the production of fossil fuels, but will still make use of renewable energy sources. They have promised to “end the war on coal” and eliminate the $5 trillion Obama-Clinton Climate Action Plan as well as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan.

Michael Mann, distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, told AccuWeather there will be a fundamental shift. Mann said the shift will not just be on the policy side but also with respect to the acceptance of basic science once Trump takes office.

“His denial of the risks arising from climate change and his threat to pull out of international climate agreements and dissolve key government programs aimed at limiting carbon emission are out of step with the priorities of our own business community and national security community, each of which have stressed the urgency of acting on this problem,” Mann said.

Here are several ways that America’s environmental strategies could look different under a Trump presidency.

The U.S. could withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement

On Dec. 12, 2015 at a Climate Change Conference in Paris, nearly 200 countries from around the world came together to reach an historic agreement to address the threats posed by climate change.

The pact sets forth a long-term goal to make sure that global temperatures do not rise more than 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. It calls on countries to combat climate change by accelerating and intensifying the investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future.

In early September, the U.S. and China, two of the biggest emitters in the world, joined the agreement, which became official on Nov. 4.

When enough nations joined the pact for it to become ratified, Obama hailed it as a “historic day.”

Yet, once the transition from the Obama administration to the Trump administration is complete, there is uncertainty about whether the U.S. will remain in the pact.

During Trump’s campaign, he said he would withdraw the U.S from the agreement. Following the election, however, he stated that he would have an “open mind” with regard to the climate treaty.

Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil and Trump’s choice for secretary of state, said during his Senate confirmation hearing that he would recommend the U.S. not abandon the agreement.

Climate Central, citing several legal experts, laid out several different ways that Trump could abandon the agreement. While Trump cannot outright cancel it, he could simply ignore the treaty by disassembling U.S. environment regulations and limiting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

If the U.S. did remove itself from the agreement, the treaty could be jeopardized, according to Climate Central.

How 5 of Trump's cabinet members view climate change science

Climate research funding could be drastically cut

Policy advisers to Trump's transition teams have signaled that they want to move NASA away from climate research and develop a more ambitious space program where deep-space exploration is the focus. The space agency had a climate-related budget of nearly $2 billion in 2016.

NASA's climate research includes work on solar activity, sea level rise, global air and water temperature, air pollution, the state of the ozone layer and changes in sea ice levels.

The State Department, Interior Department, Energy Department, the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also allocate significant funds to climate research, ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.

One of the ramifications of a decrease in funding could be that a number of top scientists may pursue research opportunities in other countries, according to Mann.

“We will likely lose many of our best scientists to other countries, and the U.S. will become a second rate country when it comes to support for basic science [related to climate change],” Mann said.

“The Trump administration must choose whether it will embrace the great 21st century economic revolution of clean energy, or get left behind and be judged by history as having fundamentally failed the greatest challenge of our generation," he said.

Report a Typo