In a dramatic shift in U.S. energy policy, President Donald Trump announced the dismantling of existing climate change and renewable energy initiatives on his very first day in office. This move, driven by what he terms as a national energy emergency, aims to expedite the development of fossil fuels under the slogan “drill, baby, drill.”
Trump’s declaration is designed to ease the path for oil and gas projects by loosening environmental assessments, with the dual goals of reducing energy costs and boosting exports. However, the approach has been criticized by Democrats, who argue that the United States is already a leading producer of oil and natural gas, and emphasize the recent advancements in renewable energy, spurred by the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act.
In contrast to Trump’s fossil fuel focus, the Democrats have prepared a Senate resolution to counter his national energy emergency declaration, although their minority position suggests this will be largely symbolic. Meanwhile, Congress is poised to vote on overturning a Biden-era methane fee on oil and gas producers.
Policy Reversals and Industry Impact
The Biden administration had previously introduced a pause on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal evaluations, a move welcomed by environmentalists concerned about emissions. Trump has since lifted this pause, paving the way for increased LNG export capacity, which the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts will double by 2030.
Shell has projected a 60% rise in global LNG demand by 2040, positioning the U.S. as a central player in meeting this surge. “I think investors have become much more comfortable that they can move towards final investment decisions without the concerns that they had over the last four years about potential roadblocks,” stated Christopher Treanor, an energy and environmental attorney.
Trump has further facilitated fossil fuel development by opening more federal lands for leasing, including environmentally sensitive areas such as Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge. This shift diverges from prior efforts to protect sensitive regions and limit offshore drilling in major oceanic areas.
Environmental and Regulatory Adjustments
Environmental organizations have responded with legal challenges against these policy changes. The Trump administration’s expansion of leasing does not necessarily guarantee increased production, as demonstrated by the limited interest in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge leases.
The Army Corps of Engineers initially marked numerous Clean Water Act permits for expedited processing under Trump’s orders but later removed these designations pending further review. Tom Pelton from the Environmental Integrity Project commented, “They don’t seem to be backing off. They are just going to refine the list.”
Critics, such as David Bookbinder from the Environmental Integrity Project, argue that the administration is using the energy emergency declaration as a pretext to bypass environmental laws for fossil fuel developments, despite no current energy shortages.
Concerns Over Long-term Effects
Pat Parenteau from Vermont Law & Graduate School warns of the long-term implications of these policy directions, suggesting they could significantly weaken federal environmental protection capabilities. “I think they are going to accomplish what no other administration has been able to do in terms of crippling the institutional capacity of the federal government to protect public health, to conserve national resources to save endangered species,” he stated.
Trump’s initiatives also include challenging the Endangered Species Act to facilitate energy projects, potentially leading to species extinction. Additionally, his administration has curtailed support for wind energy projects, halting offshore wind lease sales and pausing related approvals and permits.
The omission of solar, wind, and battery storage from Trump’s domestic energy resource list contrasts sharply with the growth of solar power as a major electricity source in the U.S. David Shepheard from Baringa warns that such policies could tether the U.S. to coal and gas, hindering the transition to renewables amid rising electricity demands from technology sectors.
A Baringa analysis suggests that Trump’s policy trajectory will elevate emissions, complicating efforts to meet international climate goals.
Original Story at abcnews.go.com