The Lasting Impact of the Trump Administration on the Environment

Caption. One of Trump’s last policies to enact in office reduced over 3 million acres of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons.

By Helen Gloege ’23 

Staff Writer

On day one, newly inaugurated President Joe Biden and his climate team got to work: They rejoined the Paris Agreement, rescinded the federal permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline, reestablished the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and placed a moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Biden has promised a presidency that centers on climate change. Despite his goals, the administration will be working with deep budget cuts, staff losses and the elimination of climate programs and research from the former administration. Drastic climate action will not occur until Biden officials remedy the deficiencies left behind. Gina McCarthy, the administration’s national climate advisor, said, “There is hard work ahead to rebuild agencies and our capacities from the ground up.”

Trump’s actions over his final two months in office weakened many existing environmental regulations. For example, on Jan. 13, with most attention focused on former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment vote, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule limiting its ability to regulate heat-trapping gases. That same day, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it had slashed over 3 million acres of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, possibly leading to logging in those areas. 

Throughout his presidency, Trump made significant changes to the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Within the past month, additional changes took place, making it more difficult to define “critical habitats,” specific geographic areas set aside for a species’ survival. One of the changes he made reduces the amount of land considered “critical habitats,” while another makes it easier to avoid establishing a habitat. 

Along with more recent changes, the Trump administration has led to lost years of progress on emission reduction and developing public trust in scientific integrity. The administration also demonstrated pullbacks on climate regulations despite scientific authorities clearly communicating the urgent need to act. In 2017, Trump told the EPA to dismantle the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The plan aimed to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This reduction would have avoided 70 million tons of emissions by the end of this year and over 400 million tons by 2030. The Clean Power Plan was replaced with the Affordable Clean Energy rule that the EPA said would result in only 11 million tons less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 2030. This rule was then unanimously struck down in federal court on Jan. 19, 2021. 

Due to how long greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere, the Trump administration could influence climate change for years to come. A 2020 estimate from the Rhodium Group, a research institute aiming to provide independent and original research, data and analytics on a range of global subjects, found that the Trump administration’s actions, which weakened greenhouse gas regulations, could add 1.8 gigatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2035. Additionally, various climate-related organizations have been adversely affected. EPA research labs and science advisory boards are currently smaller, as their workforce has lost over 600 people. The Department of Energy’s Quadrennial Energy Review, a four-part roadmap for U.S. energy policy up to 2040, has been curtailed, along with other research. The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Environment and Energy has also been cut. Additionally, the Trump administration disengaged from the international Arctic Council and blocked climate work at the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.

Among the slew of decreasing regulations, the oil and gas lease spree has peaked during the last few months of the Trump administration, with the Bureau of Land Management approving the sale of 1,400 leases out of 3,000 applications. Oil and gas leases are difficult to undo because they often involve property rights laws. Furthermore, many of the oil and gas leases target sensitive habitats. The Bureau of Land Management headquarters recently relocated to Grand Junction, Colorado, from Washington, D.C., causing many leading officials to leave the agency and decrease its effectiveness. 

In early January, the Trump administration announced it had issued drilling leases on over 400,000 acres of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The formal issue of the leases by the Bureau of Land Management came a day before the inauguration of Biden, who had pledged to protect the 19.6 million-acre land. Before leaseholders can begin drilling wells, they need to seek permits from the new administration. The Bureau of Land Management’s Alaska office said it had issued nine of the 11 leases that received bids at auction on Jan. 6 and were working on issuing the remaining two. The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority was given seven leases. The other two were issued to Alaska real estate company Knik Arm Services LLC and Regenerate Alaska Inc., a unit of Australia’s 88 Energy Ltd. The Gwich’in Steering Committee that represents tribes reliant on the region’s Porcupine caribou denounced the move. 

On day one of his presidency, Biden put a temporary moratorium on the gas and oil leasing activities in the refuge. This ban cited alleged legal deficiencies underlying the program and the inadequacy of required environmental review. Biden’s executive order will be directed to the Department of the Interior to review the program and the law surrounding the situation. It could be difficult for the Biden administration and environmental groups to challenge these leases. Once the lease is sold, its buyer has property rights over it, so there will likely be litigation if the leases themselves were validly issued. If any one of the leases are upheld in court, it will become much more difficult to revoke any of them.

Nevertheless, buried in the $900 billion stimulus package passed last December was some climate legislation. The package included the phasing out of hydrofluorocarbons, a class of super heat-trapping gases, and the extension of carbon capture tech tax credit for the industry. The United States will also officially rejoin the Paris Agreement on Feb. 19. The Biden team is likely to rely on state and local partners to help demonstrate emission cuts. The administration has removed the Keystone XL Pipeline’s permit, meaning the chances of it being built have significantly diminished. The pipeline would have supported new production beyond 2050. The administration is also reestablishing the Obama-era process that developed and maintained the social cost of carbon and methane. The metrics will assign a monetized value to each ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere and will be used in cost-benefit analyses for regulation and other actions.

The Biden administration can replace many of the environmental protections Trump dismantled. Policies such as reinstating or tightening Obama-era standards on issues like car and truck emissions can take anywhere from a few months to a year. There are several pathways that the Biden administration may use to undo the regulatory accomplishments of the Trump administration. The fastest route is the Congressional Review Act that allows Congress to nullify a rule within 60 legislative working days of its passage. However, when a law is nullified, it prohibits future regulation that is considered “substantially the same.” This part of the act hasn’t been tested in courts, and it could backfire when developing similar legislation. Another pathway is through the use of courts to block regulations on various grounds. The rule-making process itself is another tool where it could be possible to simultaneously repeal and replace rules. Many of these processes can be full of delays and take years to go fully into effect.

Boston-Based Chemical Company Novomer Develops ECo-friendly Polymer

Pictured above: Eco-friendly Polymers. Photograph courtesy of Pixabay.

By Siona Ahuja ’24  

Staff Writer 

This November, the Boston-based chemical company Novomer launched its newest innovation: Rinnovo, a new class of compostable polymers. Conventionally, plastics are polymers made from carbon and a host of hazardous petrochemicals, and its production is extremely energy intensive, meaning it emits large amounts of CO2. Novomer’s technology produces biodegradable and compostable polymers that use almost half the materials that regular polymers require. The other processing ingredient is waste CO2 –– gas waste that is extracted from industrial processes –– which goes through a process that refines carbon molecules for use in manufacturing. This process, using the company’s trademark technology, Novo 22 Catalyst, enables the creation of “high performing, carbon efficient, cost efficient” material. Because of waste CO2’s affordability, the finished polymer is inexpensive, unlike other bioplastics, some of which can be 20 to 50 percent costlier than normal plastics. 

In an interview with Waste360, Novomer CEO Jeff Uhrig talked about Rinnovo’s compatibility with nature. He explained that their polymers are made from a polyhydroxyalkanoate backbone, which is produced by various organisms like algae. Since these are already found in nature, the ecosystem is prepared to disintegrate the final product following its usage. Its biodegradable nature allows it to reduce aquatic toxicity and waste sent to landfills or incinerators, as is routine with non-biodegradable polymers.  

As with Novomer’s polymers, all biodegradable plastics are less harmful substitutes to plastics made from fossil fuels. They can be used in a wide variety of ways, from packaging to waste collection products. Despite rules and bans against certain non-biodegradable plastic, especially single-use plastic, the production and distribution of biodegradable “bioplastics” is very low. According to a 2018 study, only 4,409,245 tons of plastic, just above 1 percent of global annual plastic manufacturing, is biodegradable. More so, a “bioplastic” label does not guarantee eco-friendliness because there are several issues within this family of polymers. 

The term “bioplastic” can mean plastics made out of natural ingredients like sugarcane or naturally made plastics that are biodegradable. However, not all bioplastics are biodegradable, and they leach toxins into the environment for years. Plastics that do biodegrade can also be made from synthesizing fossil fuel products. A rarer subset of bioplastics are compostable, which can be further segregated into home compostable plastics or industrially compostable plastics, the majority of which fall into the latter category.

Out of the 6.3 billion tons of plastic humankind has mass produced and thrown away since the 1950s, only a meager amount — 600 million tons — has been recycled while the rest lies in landfills, on the soil or in the oceans. 

While biodegradable plastics curb the plastic problem on land to an extent, their biodegradable properties are inefficient in seas. Thick plastics that line coffee cups and cup lids, clear plastic tumblers, drinking straws and other food packaging are expected to act like traditional plastic in seawater and won’t break down at all, severely damaging the marine ecosystem. By the midcentury, researchers expect the amount of plastic in the ocean to overtake the fish.

In addition, littered plastics also cause the decay of plastics into microplastics. In an experiment, Imogen Napper of the University of Plymouth concluded that natural factors like UV rays, sunlight, rain and soil can cause bioplastics to break down into smaller pieces that can cause more harm. Animals can unconsciously ingest these pieces and choke or the pieces can block their digestive tracts, resulting in death. 

In 2015, the United Nations Environment Programme published a report on the misconceptions and concerns regarding biodegradable plastics. It concluded that “the adoption of plastic products labelled as ‘biodegradable’ will not bring about a significant decrease either in the quantity of plastic entering the ocean or the risk of physical and chemical impacts on the marine environment, on the balance of current scientific evidence.” 

Climate Education Is Changing, but Lacks Uniformity

by Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer

Between rampant fires up and down the West Coast and record-breaking heat across the Northern Hemisphere, the disastrous effects of climate change have been becoming more obvious. A poll by NPR confirmed that 80 percent of U.S. parents and 86 percent of U.S. teachers think climate change should be taught in schools, showing a quantifiably large portion of the population acknowledging the importance of climate change. However, many teachers don’t talk about climate change in classrooms and few parents or guardians discuss it with their children at home.  

Teachers face a multitude of obstacles when it comes to teaching about climate change in classrooms, including possible lack of resources, funding, connection to the subject they teach and support from their school districts. In the United States, it is up to individual schools, school districts and teachers to determine whether they will teach about human caused climate change. These issues, compounded with concerns about the reactions of parents and the political jargon that often surrounds climate change, dissuade other teachers from discussing it in their classrooms. In addition, many teachers themselves may not have learned about climate change when they were in school and may feel ill-equipped to talk about it in their own classrooms.  

Despite the struggles that teachers are facing, there have been several attempts to mandate and strengthen human-caused climate change programs. Since 2013, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards that strengthen the science education students receive, including teaching human-caused climate change starting in middle school. The Next Generation Science Standards aim to build a comprehensive understanding of science over time and enable educators to create future generations of scientifically literate students. 

Some individual states have gone beyond science education with a focus on specifically climate change based programs. In Washington, a multimillion dollar budget for K-12 science education with an emphasis on climate science was passed in 2017. The result was ClimeTime, which funds training for teachers as well as projects and events that connect public school teachers with environmental organizations in their communities. Within the first year of implementation, about 10 percent of public school teachers in Washington took advantage of the program. The teachers who attended these seminars and trainings said they felt better equipped to teach their students about the topic. This year, the National Center for Science Education compiled 18 pieces of legislation across 10 states focused on climate change education. The bills would increase the amount of climate change, sustainability and environmental science concepts taught in public schools. So far, nine of the 18 bills have died while most others are pending.

Outside of the U.S. education system, other countries are also beginning to tackle climate change education in the classroom setting. Cambodia is leading climate change education in Asia. Cambodian schools are allowing students to become part of the effort to find solutions to climate change. In New Zealand, starting this year, every student will have access to materials about climate change written by the country’s leading science agencies. The program will be offered to all schools that teach 11- to 15-year-old students but won’t be compulsory. On June 17, 2020, a Mexican senator, Clemente Castañeda Hoeflich, presented an initiative that proposes strengthening education on environmental protection and climate change in schools. It encourages students to change their attitudes and behaviors towards protecting natural resources. The Italian government announced that, starting this year, they will become the world’s first country to institute a mandatory course on climate change and sustainable development in all public schools. 

In the international framework, the One U.N. Climate Change Learning Partnership (also known as U.N. CC:Learn) is a collaborative learning platform launched by the United Nations with the involvement of 36 multilateral organizations. Its aim is to help countries achieve climate action through climate literacy and applied skills development. The e-learning platform is the single largest dedicated platform on climate change, with a specific focus on developing countries’ needs. The programs are aligned with nationally determined contributions and the National Adaptation Plan, both of which are part of the Paris Agreement.

Students currently at Mount Holyoke are at the age where the climate crisis was taught as “global warming” throughout K-12 education, if taught at all. With or without a formal classroom education on the topic, students can still imagine what climate change education could look like. 

Acadia Ferrero-Lampron ’23 suggests a more science-based approach with projects and experiments that might highlight concepts or through visuals like documentaries. “[It could be] incorporated into a government class and discussion[s] about laws and polic[ies] that should be made,” said Samantha Pittman ’23. “Once you know what’s happening you can … contact your representatives.” 

Many students have learned about climate change through environmental studies classes or specific Advanced Placement courses. “Environmental science felt like one of the most relevant courses that I took in high school,” said Ellen Switchenko ’23. “Everything we learned was so pertinent as to what’s happening in the real world.” 

Teaching climate change in schools is essential to prepare students for their future of reversing climate change. While we may not know what climate change education looks like at the moment, there is a movement to make sure that students know that climate change exists.

Climate Activism Takes an Online Shape During COVID-19

by Helen Gloege ’23

Staff Writer

Staying home as a result of the pandemic does not mean staying silent about injustices. It has been nearly a year since the youth-led global climate strikes on Sept. 20 and much has changed. Climate strikes planned throughout the pandemic have been canceled, but the movement hasn’t disappeared.

With the upcoming Nov. 3 election in the United States, networks of youth climate activists have been regrouping with a focus on election campaigning through socially distanced methods including phone banks, social media and organizing. The larger youth-led Sunrise Movement in particular has been training young activists to canvass for candidates who are proponents of renewable energy.

For some activist groups, there has been a step back from demonstrations, strikes and protests and toward education on climate and those involved in climate activism. Website and Instagram account 1 Million Activist Stories showcases stories of various climate activists from around the world. On Sept. 22, the book “All We Can Save: Truth, Courage, and Solutions for the Climate Crisis” will be released. The book is a collection of women climate leaders from 60 contributors including youth climate activist Xiye Bastida and Hadley-based researcher Susanne C. Moser. 

The Re-Earth Initiative is an international youth-led organization that aims to make the climate movement more accessible. The organization’s first action was a global digital protest that occurred on Earth Day of this year and asked participants to make two climate pledges, one individual and one systemic. They then presented activities, toolkits, webinars and more to allow people to accomplish their goals. 

The Initiative’s most recent action has involved launching an open letter urging Latin American and Caribbean governments to sign and/or ratify the Escazú Agreement, which is the first legally binding environmental human rights treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean. The agreement secures rights including access to information and participation and provides legal provisions to protect the rights of defenders of the environment who face persecution and murder.

The #FridaysForFuture movement began in August 2018 after Greta Thunberg and other young activists sat in front of the Swedish parliament every school day for three weeks to protest against the lack of action on the climate crisis. Soon the movement went viral and now it is a worldwide phenomenon. The movement was partly digital before the pandemic and has continued in that direction. The #ClimateStrikeOnline action is another online movement where people are asked to post selfies from home with protest signs. Additional actions have included joining others across the world in mass calls, tweets and mass email campaigns. 

This semester, Mount Holyoke students are scattered across the world. However, similar to global movements, this hasn’t stopped the organizing and activism of various environmental student organizations. Sunrise South Hadley and the Climate Justice Coalition are attempting to get around the hurdles and difficulties of online activism while the Student Government Association works toward the establishment of a sustainability commission.   

“There is not a lot we can do collectively when we are so far apart,” Emma Sullivan ’22, a Sunrise South Hadley organizer, said. However, they are still finding ways to be active while online. Sunrise South Hadley hasn’t yet gotten into the swing of normal meetings but some of the members are currently focused on phone banking in tandem with the national Sunrise Movement for various supporters of the Green New Deal.

 Sunrise Movement and Sunrise South Hadley are currently putting all efforts into getting as many Green New Deal champions and progressives into Congress and voting President Donald Trump out of office. Sunrise Movement is also supporting the Black Lives Matter movement and has partnered with The Movement For Black Lives. Sunrise Movement has encouraged its members to follow Black organizers and leaders, to address white supremacy and support Black-led groups.

The Climate Justice Coalition has kicked off the semester with a goal for action despite the restrictions of COVID-19 and the need to work on a virtual platform. The CJC hopes to continue creating a welcoming and supportive environment for new and returning members to foster a sense of community. 

“We hope to make actions this semester accessible to everyone,” said Kayla Fennel ’22, a CJC member. These actions include continuing to push for divestment through outreach to students and alums on social media and other platforms. They intend to turn theory into practice with various ideas, goals and tangible steps to support environmental justice. As an organization, they hope to make this semester one of the continued actions despite being apart. The CJC is listed on Embark, the virtual platform for student organizations this semester.

Also at Mount Holyoke, SGA is in the midst of their annual recruitment process and is working on a restructuring of student senate as part of last year's constitutional review. As part of their reconfiguration, they will be exchanging working groups for commissions, which will research various courses of action for SGA. While the commissions are not yet in effect, one focusing on environmental issues and the College’s pledge for sustainability is expected to be formed.