American Prosperity and the Role of Environmental Regulation: Part Two

By Natascha Smith, Energy Fellow

By Office of the President of the United States (https://twitter.com/VP/) 
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

As we enter a new year, the Trump Administration has already taken steps to further erode environmental protections by opening up the continental shelf to oil and gas drilling. In considering the Trump Administration’s ongoing push to eliminate environmental protections, part one of this series looked at how the EPA and environmental regulations benefit the American people and economy. Part two explores why, given the benefits that environmental regulations provide, the Trump administration is pushing to eliminate crucial environmental protections, such as the Clean Power Plan.

Part II: the Trump Administration’s Push to Dismantle Federal Environmental Protections

After pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement, it’s no secret that addressing climate change is not on President Trump’s to-do list. Trump has consistently ignored findings and recommendations of the world’s top scientists, turned a blind eye to the climate impacts we’re already experiencing, and unapologetically defended polluting industries while demonizing people working to protect the environment. Despite the fact that environmental regulations provide tangible benefits to the economy, the Trump administration continues to cling to the belief that protecting rich and powerful business interests is more important than protecting Americans from catastrophic climate change. The question is, why?

It’s no wonder that politicians turn a blind eye to scientific evidence when corporations spend millions in anti-climate lobbying and opposing science-based policies. Many corporations, hoping to delay or deter policies and regulations addressing climate change, attempt to influence the way American leaders and the public view climate change by using the same three-pronged approach made popular by Big Tobacco. First, corporations exaggerate the uncertainty surrounding climate-change; second, they fund think tanks engaged in spreading false or misleading scientific reports; and third, they provide financial contributions to politicians who openly deny that climate change is occurring.

A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluated the corporate influence of 28 major companies that chose to engage in climate policy through publicly commenting on EPA’s CO₂ endangerment finding as well as making contributions to groups for or against state greenhouse gas reduction laws. The report showed that while each of these corporations claimed to be taking internal actions to reduce carbon emissions, half of those same companies “misrepresented some element of established climate science in their public communications.” If this seems like a mixed message, it is. Companies like Exxon Mobile are evenly affiliated with organizations that support climate science and organizations that misrepresent climate science. Exxon spends over $1,500,000 annually on political contributions; however, for every dollar it spends supporting efforts and politicians aiming to address climate change, it spends $10 on funding for efforts and politicians denying or misrepresenting climate change science.

Exxon certainly isn’t the only corporation guilty of trying to have things both ways. Investor-owned utilities have been aware of the dangers of climate change and the role that carbon dioxide emissions play as far back as 1968, when President Johnson’s science advisor addressed the annual convention of the Edison Electric Institute. In the 1970s and 1980s, more than 50 electric utilities came together to research the long-term effects of CO₂ on the planet and the electricity sector. While they acknowledged that there was a consensus that manmade CO₂ emissions were changing the climate, they also realized that reducing reliance on fossil fuels could have serious financial repercussions for the electric sector. So taking a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, the utilities decided to contest and undermine climate change science and spread misinformation to the public.

In 2016, more than a dozen state attorneys general announced they were commencing investigations into whether fossil fuel companies misled the public about the risks of climate change. Despite efforts to rein in corporate attempts to disseminate inaccurate or misleading information, and aware of the threats their business practices present to the planet, major fossil fuel companies and special interest groups are still working to block efforts to reduce carbon pollution. It will likely take years to fully understand the effect of these corporate actions.

Given the urgency of global climate change, there simply is not time to wait for special interests and lobbying groups to share the full story. It is up to the public to support policies and representatives who will advocate for climate change regulation. It’s time for the voice of our citizens, concerned with the health of our people and planet, to drown out the voice of corporations, because the truth is that Trump is only listening to those speaking the loudest.

With corporations spending millions to influence the rollback of environmental regulations, we have a lot to lose. Part III of this series will examine the progress that has been made on rolling-back environmental regulations and what impacts can we anticipate if the Trump administration succeeds in significantly eliminating environmental protections.