Reviving Real Environmentalism: A Blueprint for President Trump's First Day
Reviving Real Environmentalism: A Blueprint for President Trump's First Day
Breaking Free from Climate Ideology to Restore Energy, Economy, and Scientific Integrity
The moment President Trump steps back into the Oval Office, he has a unique opportunity to dismantle the climate ideology that has shackled our energy sector, hampered economic growth, and compromised scientific integrity for years. Americans have long been burdened by restrictive environmental regulations, rules that politicians conveniently ignore when it suits their agendas. Consider the recent exemptions granted to semiconductor plants under the Biden administration. While everyday citizens and small businesses grapple with costly compliance, the government's favored projects receive a free pass. This duplicity not only erodes public trust but also distorts the true essence of environmental responsibility. It's time to revive genuine environmentalism, one that prioritizes practical solutions over ideological zeal and places people and science above politics. Here's what President Trump should prioritize to restore balance, transparency, and common sense in our climate and energy policies.
Reversing Double Standards in Environmental Regulations
On his first day, President Trump should take decisive action to eliminate the double standards that allow the government to advance its pet projects while forcing Americans to adhere to burdensome rules. Recently, President Biden signed legislation exempting certain semiconductor factories from environmental impact studies, a move that highlights the inconsistency in policy application. This exemption, embedded in the CHIPS and Science Act, sidesteps the extensive environmental reviews that other businesses must painstakingly endure, allowing favored tech projects to fast-track their progress.
Such double standards not only undermine the public’s trust in government but also breed resentment. Why should small businesses or individual homeowners face strict emissions or construction rules while high-profile projects glide through regulatory loopholes? This isn't just poor governance, it's an abuse of policy that creates a protected class of industries at the expense of everyone else. If exemptions can be made for select projects, they should be available for all. By confronting these inconsistencies, President Trump can set a new precedent: enforce fair environmental regulations that apply equally across all sectors, eliminating preferential treatment that picks winners and losers based on government whims. This move would restore trust, level the playing field, and free Americans from unnecessary bureaucratic burdens that stifle growth and innovation without effectively protecting the environment.
A stark example of regulatory overreach inflating costs is California's high-speed rail project, famously known as the "bullet train." Initially estimated at $33 billion, the project's cost has ballooned to over $100 billion, largely due to environmental assessments, regulatory compliance, and endless litigation. Obtaining permits, enduring land acquisition delays, and navigating California's stringent environmental policies have added billions to the budget and pushed the completion date back by years.
What's more frustrating is that this prolonged process hasn't necessarily led to better environmental outcomes. Instead, it has become a tool for endless legal challenges and costly bureaucracy, benefiting lawyers and consultants more than the environment. The soaring costs have left many questioning whether California will ever see the project completed. Imagine what could be achieved if the billions tied up in regulatory hoops were redirected toward actual construction, infrastructure improvements, or sustainable energy initiatives.
Removing Ideological Language from Federal Agencies
Another critical step is the immediate removal of ideological language from funding agencies and public institutions that receive federal dollars. Agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have increasingly incorporated ideological language and narratives around climate into their funding priorities. The NSF, for example, openly states in its Climate section…
In recent years, the world has experienced an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events…
However, data from sources like the EM-DAT disaster database, which tracks global disaster trends, suggests that while overall economic costs and the visibility of such events may have risen, largely due to urbanization and increased wealth in affected regions, there isn't a clear trend indicating a significant rise in the frequency of extreme weather events directly attributable to climate change.
Similarly, government institutions like NASA and NOAA often employ climate-centric language that implies a one-sided perspective. For instance, NASA’s Earth Science Division has outlined climate change as…
one of the most pressing issues of our time…
a stance that directly leads researchers to focus on confirming the crisis rather than examining it critically or exploring alternative interpretations of data. By removing ideological language from funding criteria, the administration can encourage a more balanced scientific approach, ensuring that public funding supports open inquiry rather than reinforcing a predetermined narrative. This shift would bolster scientific integrity and foster a broader range of perspectives in climate research.
From firsthand experience, many researchers have observed that proposals tangentially related to climate are given better chances at funding when they include catchy climate language. This push to add "climate relevance" distorts the focus of research and sends a clear message: projects reinforcing the climate narrative are more likely to receive support. By anchoring funding language to disputed claims, agencies effectively push an agenda rather than fostering balanced, evidence-based inquiry.
To restore scientific integrity, we must remove ideological language from official statements and funding criteria. Unverified assertions should not influence which projects receive federal support; instead, data should guide conclusions and policy decisions. Only then can we ensure that scientific research remains free from bias and grounded in genuine inquiry, not conformity to a preferred narrative.
Eliminating Unscientific Propaganda Like “Billion-Dollar Disasters”
President Trump should also act swiftly to eliminate unscientific and misleading propaganda, such as the “billion-dollar disasters” narrative that frames each costly natural event as evidence of climate change. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a primary driver of this narrative, publishes annual reports tallying the number of billion-dollar disasters in the U.S., implying a direct link to climate change. However, NOAA acknowledges that these figures primarily reflect changes in population density, wealth, and infrastructure… not climate-related phenomena.
This approach distorts public perception by focusing on the dollar cost of natural disasters without accounting for population growth and urban expansion. The increase in costly disasters correlates more closely with rising property values and expanding urbanization in vulnerable areas than with changes in climate patterns. President Trump could mandate a restructuring of NOAA's reporting methods, ensuring that all reports clearly differentiate between economic impacts due to population factors and actual climate-related trends. This move would promote transparency and prevent the manipulation of disaster data to push a specific agenda.
Reviewing Chevron Deference and Holding Bureaucrats Accountable
Another essential task is reviewing and correcting cases where federal agencies have used Chevron deference to overreach in regulating certain sectors. Chevron deference allows agencies to interpret ambiguous laws, granting them significant regulatory power. But with the Supreme Court's recent move to limit this deference, Trump has an opening to hold bureaucrats accountable for overreach. In many cases, agencies have imposed restrictive policies that stifle domestic energy production, hinder mining projects, and curb economic growth, all without accountability to the public.
For instance, the EPA has used Chevron deference to expand its authority over emissions and water regulations, frequently sidelining input from affected industries. Reexamining these cases could restore fair regulatory practices in the energy and mining sectors, supporting growth and job creation without compromising environmental standards. This would ensure that unelected bureaucrats cannot continue to push restrictive policies that harm American industries and consumers under the guise of ambiguous legal authority.
Revitalizing Energy Independence and Ending the Natural Gas Slowdown
Another priority should be revitalizing America’s energy independence by streamlining natural gas exports. Under the current administration, exports have been deliberately slowed, keeping Europe reliant on Russian energy instead of allowing U.S. natural gas to reach markets that need it most. This bottleneck not only weakens our allies but also undercuts American energy producers and keeps domestic prices higher than necessary.
Harris’s administration had intended to further restrict natural gas exports, framing it as a climate-forward policy. But the reality is that America’s natural gas industry has the potential to reduce global emissions by displacing coal use in Europe and Asia. By lifting restrictions, Trump can restore America’s role as a reliable energy partner for our allies, reduce global emissions through clean natural gas exports, and boost the domestic economy. This approach combines pragmatism with environmental benefit, a stark contrast to ideologically driven policies that prioritize optics over substance.
Revitalizing Federal Land Management for Balanced Environmental Policy
A renewed approach to managing federal lands can serve as the backbone for a more balanced environmental policy, one that respects both economic needs and ecological realities. Thoughtful, locally informed management of public lands is essential for responsible resource use and sustainable development. Federal land policy has too often relied on sweeping, one-size-fits-all mandates that disregard the unique needs and expertise of local communities. These mandates can stall beneficial projects, hinder economic growth, and stifle innovation in environmental stewardship.
Reforms to the management of federal lands should prioritize input from local communities and consider the specific environmental and economic conditions of each area. This includes updating policies like the Endangered Species Act, which, while critical, has at times been wielded as a blunt tool to block land use rather than as a targeted approach to genuine conservation needs. By making these reforms, we can encourage policies that enable responsible land use without compromising on conservation goals.
Reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from Yellowstone…
Balancing conservation with responsible development fosters a more sustainable approach to managing public lands. This type of stewardship respects the insights of those most familiar with the land, encourages efficient resource use, and protects environmental integrity. Under this approach, public lands can be managed in a way that benefits both the natural world and the communities that rely on them.
Returning to Real Environmentalism, Not Climate Ideology
In conclusion, Trump’s administration has an opportunity to course-correct America’s approach to environmental policy, stripping away the ideological layers that have clouded genuine environmental progress. By eliminating double standards, removing biased language from federal agencies, rejecting unscientific narratives, and promoting energy independence, we can refocus on true environmentalism, one that values conservation, responsible resource management, and pollution reduction over alarmism and ideological crusades. This is not just about “undoing” the last administration’s work; it’s about creating a sustainable, science-based framework that serves both the American people and the environment.
The stakes are high, and the need for honest, effective policy has never been greater. It’s time to abandon the climate religion and embrace rational, science-driven environmentalism that respects both nature and human progress. Let’s make day one the beginning of a smarter, saner approach to preserving our planet and protecting our future.
Whenever anybody repeatedly uses "The" before "Science" or "The" before "Experts" you know you're dealing with an ideologue, or worse, an architect of lies and deceptions...
https://eccentrik.substack.com/p/5-scientific-reasons-your-vaccinated
These are all excellent and important initiatives. We need to spread the word. Thanks Doc. Tally Ho!