Blog Post

Trump’s Energy Policy: America First, Climate Last?

What will the new US administration mean for the fight against global warming? Climate change is not even mentioned in the ‘‘America First Energy Plan’’, and Simone Tagliapietra fears a reversal of recent positive steps.

By: Date: February 28, 2017 Topic: Energy & Climate

This blog was originally published by the Aspen Institute Italià.

An event on 7 March addressed the same topic. Take a look.

Under President Barack Obama, the United States assumed a leading role in the global fight against climate change. The 2015 Paris Agreement would probably not have materialised without the former President. He played a central role in committing the United States, for the first time, to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and also in engaging emerging countries in the process.

The road to Paris started to look really possible when, in November 2014, the United States engaged in a landmark deal with China that put the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters in lockstep to cut emissions. In September 2016, when the United States and China ratified the Paris Agreement, the European Union was prompted to follow, enabling the agreement to enter into force at an unprecedented speed.

The Trump administration might now signal a U-turn in the United States’ international climate policies. During the electoral campaign, Donald Trump reinforced his climate-sceptic profile, defining climate change as a ‘‘hoax of the Chinese government’’, and promising to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and to immediately stop ‘‘all payments of the United States’ tax dollars to United Nations’ global warming programmes’’.

However, with the Paris Agreement having entered into force, President Trump will not be able, in legal terms, to withdraw from the deal during his first term. In fact, he would be able to trigger Article 28 (a provision allowing countries to withdraw from the Agreement, in Brexit terms the Article 50 of the Paris Agreement) only three years after the Paris Agreement’s entry into force, and it would then be another year before it took effect. By that time, November 2020, Trump’s first term would be over.

However, President Trump will have two other options to change the United States’ international climate trajectory.

The first would be to directly pull out of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – the umbrella agreement for the Paris Agreement – and this would also be legally considered as a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement itself. This radical option, paradoxically, would be easier to achieve than withdrawal from the Paris Agreement alone. In fact, it might be attainable within the first year of the presidency.

The second option would be to simply ignore the international climate commitments assumed by President Obama, and accordingly reshape the United States’ energy policy. This option would be as damaging for global climate action as US withdrawal from the UNFCCC. Without a strong commitment from the historically biggest greenhouse gas emitter, emerging countries like China and India might raise questions over own climate efforts.

This second option seems to be the most likely to be pursued by the Trump administration. This not because it merely removed the White House climate change website on its first day in office – which was, by itself, already a first clear sign of the new era – but because the new administration’s energy strategy does not even mention climate change.

In fact, following the presidential inauguration of January 20, the White House immediately released the ‘‘America First Energy Plan’’, focused on three key targets: i) lower energy costs for Americans; ii) maximize the use of American energy resources; iii) freeing America from dependence on foreign oil.

To achieve these targets, the plan calls for a deep de-regulation of the energy industry, including the elimination of ‘‘harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.’’ The plan estimates – without providing details – that lifting these restrictions could increase American wages by more than USD 30 billion over the next 7 years.

Likewise, the plan estimates American untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves at USD 50 trillion, and calls for their exploitation in order to ‘‘bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans’’ and in order to use related revenues to ‘‘rebuild roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure’’. The plan also makes reference to the coal sector, outlying the strong commitment of the new Administration to its revival, also through clean coal technology. The plan not only links the exploitation of domestic energy resources to supposedly related job creation and economic growth, but also to the assumed achievement of ‘‘energy independence from the OPEC cartel and any nations hostile to [U.S.] interests.’’

So, climate change is not even mentioned in the ‘‘America First Energy Plan’’, and the only mention to environmental issues goes to the need for a ‘‘responsible stewardship’’ of the U.S. environment. According to the plan, the Trump administration intends to carry out this target by refocusing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on its ‘‘essential mission of protecting [U.S.] air and water.’’

Considering that the new administration has immediately made moves to sideline the agency’s scientific research on climate change (e.g. the agency was reportedly asked by the White House to temporarily halt all contracts and grants pending a review, and to no longer discuss its research with anyone outside, including the media) this point of the plan might well prelude a forthcoming attempt to limit the activity of the agency on climate change related issues.

In short, while President Trump’s energy policy seeks to put America first, it certainly puts climate last. As previously mentioned, the pursue of such a policy could endanger the implementation process of the Paris Agreement, as emerging countries might raise questions over own climate efforts vis-à-vis the disengagement of the historically biggest greenhouse gas emitter.

In this context, the role of China – as world’s current largest emitter of greenhouse gases – will certainly be key. Chinese President Xi Jinping has reiterated several times the firm commitment of China in leading the fight against global warming. With a more-or-less implicit US climate retreat, filling the gap of global climate leadership would represents a key element in ensuring the solidity of the Paris Agreement’s architecture, which is fundamentally based on international cooperation and a mutual trust.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Jun
7
11:00

Brussels Policy Dialogue: Insights for EU and Member States’ Climate Agenda

The event is a policy dialogue organised under the project, 'COP21: Results and Implications for Pathways and Policies for Low Emissions European Societies'.

Speakers: Artur Runge-Metzger, Oliver Sartor, Marta Torres-Gunfaus and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Will China’s trade war with the US end like that of Japan in the 1980s?

The outcome of the US-China trade war is anticipated to be quite different from the experience of Japan in the 1980s and 1990s, due to China’s relatively lower dependence on the US and having learned from the Japanese experience.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Kohei Iwahara Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 13, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Elections must put Europe on a path to a green future

We are at a pivotal moment for the future of Europe. It is an opportunity to reflect on the fundamental values and visions underlying the European project, and on the future direction of this common journey. Climate change should be at the centre of this reflection.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: May 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Life after the multilateral trading system

Considering a world absent a multilateral trading system is not to promote such an outcome, but to encourage all to prepare for the worst and instil greater clarity in the mind of policymakers as to what happens if compromise fails.

By: Uri Dadush and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 25, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Does attaching environmental issues to trade agreements boost support for trade liberalisation?

This blog post shows that the omission of environmental issues in the new EU-US trade negotiations may make it challenging to pass the trade agreement in the European Parliament. In particular, the inclusion of environmental issues is pivotal to keep the second largest, centre-left S&D group in the pro-trade coalition.

By: Boram Lee Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: Resuming the EU-US trade talks

Maria Demertzis sits down with Bruegel senior fellow André Sapir to break down the news, discussing the events leading up to the renewed EU-US trade talks, and the likely future course.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 23, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Getting better all the time: The benefits of learning for decarbonisation

The technological development will dramatically impact decarbonisation cost. In this blog post, the author suggests that national decarbonisation strategies should put a special emphasis on the benefits of learning.

By: Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: April 16, 2019
Read article More by this author

Opinion

Europe and the new imperialism

For decades, Europe has served as a steward of the post-war liberal order, ensuring that economic rules are enforced and that national ambitions are subordinated to shared goals within multilateral bodies. But with the United States and China increasingly mixing economics with nationalist foreign-policy agendas, Europe will have to adapt.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: April 3, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Takeaways from Xi Jinping’s visit to France and Italy and ideas for the EU-China summit

The author appraises China's strategy towards Europe ahead of next month's EU-China summit.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 27, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

A new climate strategy for the EU

At a pivotal point in time, three major EU sides come together to discuss the future climate strategy.

Speakers: Silke Karcher, Andrei Marcu, Raffaele Mauro Petriccione, Kathleen Van Brempt and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 19, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The geopolitical implications of the global energy transition

Energy has traditionally played an important role in global geopolitics, contributing to the rise of great powers, the formation of alliances and, in many cases, also to the emergence of wars and conflicts. Every international order in modern history has been based on an energy resource. This piece discusses how the ongoing low-carbon energy transformation could reshape global geopolitics in the future.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 7, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends and the Green New Deal

In the last month two prominent policy proposals that aim to combat climate change have been presented in the United States. The Green New Deal calls for the deployment of substantial government resources to combat climate change. The Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends, suggests a market-based and budget-neutral approach through a carbon tax. Michael Baltensperger reviews reactions to both.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Date: February 25, 2019
Load more posts