President Donald Trump has frequently referred to climate change as a hoax, and his administration continues to pull back on efforts to deal with it both at home and abroad. Trump recently announced that the US Environmental Protection Agency, also known as the EPA, is revoking a longtime climate policy. It is reversing a scientific finding that has long underpinned key environmental legislation in the United States. President Trump pointed a finger at former President Obama when he made the announcement. In 2009, Barack Hussein Obama, his EPA designated fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and other things that actually make factories rock and roll and other things drive very nicely as a threat to health and human welfare. Known as the endangerment finding, this determination had no basis. in fact had none whatsoever and it had no basis in law.
Trump's decision to repeal the landmark climate finding is very controversial and is set to face a legal challenge from health and environmental groups to discuss the fallout from all of this. Joining me now is Lisa Saxs. She is director at the of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment and an associate professor at Columbia Climate School. And also with us is Michael Shank. He's an adjunct professor of sustainable development at New York University.
Welcome, both of you to the show. Lisa, let's start with that. simple question, what is the fallout from all of this?
-The fallout from this is not actually even deregulation. It's massive destabilization and uncertainty, which is the worst possible context for American industries, businesses, and households. even from the perspective of trying to support US businesses. This is now causing mayhem and just going to cause massive regulatory uncertainty, regulatory fragmentation because every state and city and around the world there are going to be different regulatory standards. It's expanded legal risk for industries because actually the EPA's authorities to preempt private action against the industries. So, it's really created a very complicated landscape for US industries that's going to have high costs for American industry and for American households.
-Michael, let me ask you about this. I mean, his action reverses a 200-page document, if you will. It's got evidence, research backing up what it's saying, but he's dismissing climate change as a hoax. He's calling the climate scientists stupid people, and despite the action itself, it's also messaging. And there are people who listen to the president and kind of go on on what he says. Talk to me about the damage in both categories.
-Well, what the executive branch is saying with this move is that they don't care about Americans public health or public safety. And increasingly the Make America Healthy Again movement is witnessing this because the Trump administration is doubling down on dangerous greenhouse gases. It's doubling down on pesticides. It's doubling doubling down on forever chemicals. And even the maja movement is seeing this and is troubled by it. We know that these greenhouse gases, which now the executive branch is saying it doesn't want to regulate. We know that these greenhouse gases kill Americans. 200,000 Americans die prematurely every year because of these greenhouse gases. And that's why 20 years ago, we launched into this nearly 20 years ago, we launched into this endangerment finding because there's danger in these greenhouse gases. And so it was an attempt to protect American health, protect American safety.
It's why we have things like seat belts and speed limits and hard hats in industrial zones. It's why we have FEMA to protect Americans. It's why we have a defense department to protect Americans. And here the executive branch is saying, "We don't care about American public health. We don't care about American public safety. Have at it fossil fuel companies. Pollute all you want. We're not going to interpret the Clean Air Act in ways that for decades the US government did."
-Lisa, talk to us about the domino effect of this because when it comes to fighting climate change, there needs to be concrete commitments and actions, especially from the big emitters. And I mean, when you look at the big emitters, the United States is the second largest emitter of CO2. So, what does this do in terms of like other countries who are just sort of like, oh, we kind of maybe need to make commitments, but oh well, the US isn't doing this. I mean, talk to us about the spillover impact.
-Yeah, I think there are many different spillover impacts, but actually the rest of the world is not going to follow the US down this path. We've just the US is ceding leadership and the ability to set the rules and to be competitive in a future. But maybe I'll get to that. Let me answer your question about the spillover effects. First of all, just to completely agree with Michael. The one massive spillover effect of any deregulation of these toxic emissions is going to be extraordinary costs for the US people, not only in terms of health. Michael's exactly right, but those costs are borne by society. The health care system is going to have the cost, but also the physical impacts of climate change. We're already seeing in our country, of course, around the world as well.
Floods, wildfires, droughts, these are happening with increasing intensity, increasing frequency, and with massive high costs. And insurance is is becoming more expensive. houses are becoming less insurable. So the fallout effects of not regulating and not trying to control emissions are massively inflated costs, greater trade-offs, greater fiscal strain for states and greater costs for American households.
The rest of the world is moving on with a climate agenda for two very practical reasons. One is that the rest of the world recognizes the cost of not preparing or not trying to mitigate climate change because they see the effects and the costs and so they're trying to mitigate it. But more importantly actually many major global countries also see the opportunities of investing in the future of supporting green industrial policies of producing the technologies of the future of creating more flexible integrated energy systems.
So the US is just ceding leadership in this area and I don't think it's going to bring the rest of the world's industries down.
-And Michael Lisa made a really good point last year devastating when it comes to extreme weather all across the globe, so how critical is 2026? How dire does the climate change issue become with this new setback?
-Well, Lisa covered the spillover effects that we'll see going forward. But for anyone who doesn't believe the climate science, and clearly the Trump administration is saying it doesn't care about the science, that's what it's saying with this finding and the rolling back of the endangerment finding. But even if you're part of the Republican following and movement and voting base, this is poor use of public resource and public tax dollars. As Lisa already noted, we're paying for fossil fuels. We directly subsidize fossil fuels at 35 billion a year and indirectly at well over 750 billion a year in the cleanup of spills, leaks, etc. the negative externalities associated with fossil fuels. So already we're paying for these choices.
Fossil fuels were the fuel of the 20th century, but they won't be the fuel and the energy of the 21st century. And other countries are clearly re realizing that.
-You already mentioned that, Mike. China.
-Well over half of new vehicles purchased in China are electric. Almost 100% of new vehicles purchased in some European countries like Norway are electric. Other countries are transitioning, have transitioned to the fuels of the future, the energies of the future, which are infinite, not finite like fossil fuels. So with solar now as the cheapest electricity in history, it makes a ton of sense in terms of managing responsibly managing public resources, these natural resources and public dollars in terms of either direct or indirect subsidies to transition to the fuels and energies of the 21st century which are clearly the infinite ones like solar and wind, not the 20th century fuels, fossil, oil, coal, and gas like Trump mentioned.
-Okay. To your point, Lisa, I was in China last year. I was at some of these EV plants and they're just turning out these cars like crazy. They're going in one direction, the United States going in another. Trump saying, this is going to be cheaper cars, more jobs. Talk to us about that argument.
-Yeah, first of all, most of the industries that are energy intensive require long-term predictability and stability to be able to make effective investments in the future. Automobile companies right now are designing cars for a decade from now. They need to have predictability and certainty about what that landscape is going to look like. Now, of course, in the US, we absolutely don't have that. So, investments are going to be on hold. The cost of capital becomes higher and everyone bears the cost.
But, of course, as Michael just said, EVs are absolutely the vehicles of the future. And China has dominated that market. And now, not only in China and in Europe, as Michael said, but we're seeing an explosion of EVs in Africa and other parts of the world because they are the most efficient in general. Electrified not only cars, but also electrified heat pumps and others are more efficient than their fossil fuel alternatives. So the real tragedy for US industry and for automobiles is that in this very shortsighted absolutely corrupt by the way ruling the American industries have lost the ability to plan for the future and to make coherent investments in what are going to be the future industries.
And so I actually don't see how we recover from that unless we can get back on course very quickly. Getting back on course, Michael, of course, that would require legal challenges.
-We're obviously going to see those from environmental groups and health groups as well, but we've also seen how cumbersome that is in the United States. I mean, just recent ruling on the tariffs, but it seems like that case started forever ago. A lot of damage can happen during that period of time. Give us the sense of what it looks like as far as the legal landscape out there.
-Yeah, Mike, you've already mentioned some of the lawsuits that are already out the door by environmental groups and health groups, public health groups for the public health and public safety reasons we've already discussed on this call. We will continue to see lawsuits by states against the federal government as the executive branch is ceding control over these dangerous gases and saying that Congress should pick up the slack here in that if we want to legislate then Congress has to legislate.
So, we'll see it gummed up in the courts for years to come. And in the meantime, this administration is doubling down on 20th century fuels at taxpayer expense, poorly managing both a public resource and public tax dollars, all at the expense of public health and public safety.
Meanwhile, other countries like China, Lisa already mentioned, China's outpacing the world in wind and solar technology, EV and battery technology, and heat pump technology. So we're losing these markets while Trump is doubling down on fossil fuels. So you can imagine a future 2030, 2040, 2050. The rest of the world has transitioned to green energy, renewable energy because it is infinite. We will have solar and wind for the foreseeable future while we in the United States double down on oil, coal, and gas all at public health, public safety, public resource, and public tax dollar expense. So that's the decision that's being made here.
Hopefully, Congress will see the light and hopefully the Maha movement, the make America healthy again movement will push the administration in the right direction to make indeed America healthier again in all the ways because that is the role of government to keep us safe and secure which the executive branch has decided not to do in this case.
-Lisa, kind of to piggyback off what Michael just said, former US Secretary of State John Kerry had this to say. I'm just going to read his quote. China is now producing more wind, more solar than all of the rest of the world put together. That's what they're doing. They're deploying it. Do you think they've taken a stupid pill or something yesterday and decided to change their entire economy to meet this new standard? No. Their population wants clean air. I think the American population does too, right? The American population is being very misled and confused by a confused administration and a confused media landscape. by the way, that can't help us sort out fact from fiction and to understand really what the rest of the world is doing and the reasons behind the movement in China and in the rest of the world to produce the technologies and energies of the future. Of course, climate change is so real, so dangerous for all of us and we're going to bear the costs. But for China, this is about energy security, energy reliability, affordability. It is about having a globally competitive industry, which they are absolutely doing. They've been exporting their solar panels to the rest of the world already for many many years. So this is an economic move.
******
The American population is being very misled and confused by a confused administration and a confused media landscape
****************
It's a security move. It's a resilience move. Affordability from China. So and Americans I think don't really understand that we're not being explained that that is what's important for industry. One thing I just want to quickly say about the perspective of supporting industry, the worst thing for industry is inconsistent and incoherent regulatory frameworks. The Trump administration is purporting to have helped industry by deregulating, by creating chaos. But what China has done and to some extent what Europe has tried to do too is to actually smooth the regulatory landscape to align industrial policy with market demand with support for technologies that is supporting industry in a more coherent and more aligned investment environment for industries so that they can plan for the next 10 years.
So if the administration wants to support the industry, that is the way to do it. Understand where the world is headed in 10 years and make a coherent landscape that aligns support for the companies, the financing ecosystem, the market demand and the tools that the US government has to shape market demand and to align with the global direction of travel so that the US can continue to be competitive in the global environment. Lisa Michael, thank you so much for your insights. It's been a great discussion.
********
And for some more international perspective on these developments, I'm joined now by Andy Mock. He is senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization. And with us too from England is Bob Ward. He is a policy and communications director with the Granthm Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Thank you both for joining us. Andy, why don't I start with you and I'll start with the obvious. It seems like the US is retreating in the fight against climate change, but go wide for us. Give us the global view. What does this do to global efforts to combat climate change?
Well, thanks for having me on, Mike. And I think that's exactly right. I mean, when we look at climate, it's often framed as a morality play or diplomacy. But I think it really is becoming a test of credibility, institutional capacity, and long-term power. So how countries handle climate commitments now I think really signal how reliable they are as partners and how capable they are of executing national strategy over decades.
And I think the problem facing the United States with this is that a major power that changes course unpredictably loses allies before it loses battles. And here we can be talking about figurative battles like the battle against climate change. and I think this really is a challenge for the US. And I think what is happening here as well is that for many decades the US had the luxury of being very very inefficient. And the way I would put it is that the US succeeded not because of its political system but despite its political system.
And there's an old joke about Hollywood. Uh, but how do you make a million dollars in Hollywood? Well, you start with $10 million. And here, obviously how this applies is that the US could get away for a very long time with a fragmented political system that thrived on internal conflict and now it is being forced to deal with complex global challenges and I think we're seeing the real limitations of this system.
*********
COP 31 in Turkey will take place in extraordinary times. We find ourselves in a new world disorder.
****************
-Andy, really good point there and we'll talk a little bit more about the reliability aspect of this just a little bit later on in the broadcast. But Bob, let me start with Turkey. I mean, they're going to be hosting COP 31 later this year. The UN climate chief is already saying, "Look, we're we're in trouble when it comes to international cooperation." Let's listen to what he has to say, and I want to get your reaction on the other side.
-COP 31 in Antalia will take place in extraordinary times. We find ourselves in a new world disorder. This is a period of instability and insecurity of strong arms and trade wars. The very concept of international cooperation is under attack. So let's look at this disorder by looking back and looking forward. I mean when you look back the Paris agreement really that was the United States and China coming together and kind of pushing that through and now you just see this kind of backtracking. I was talking to a climate expert in the Arctic earlier this week and he was extraordinarily disappointed in COP 30. It had this great backdrop the Amazon telling the story but he was he just said it was a pathetic result and that was even before what we're seeing now. So give me an idea of what we can expect coming out of Turkey. A well we have the Paris agreement. Every country signed up to it apart from the Americans who have not only withdrawn from the Paris agreement but have now withdrawn from the original 92 treaty on climate change.
So we'll be absent completely from Turkey. They just won't be there. but the Paris agreement is the guide for how countries are tackling climate change. Remember that the UN process operates by consensus amongst all the countries. So actually it's amazing that any progress is made. If you think about any global issue at the moment and you try to get consensus about all the world's from all the world's countries on it, it's hard to imagine you would make any progress at all. So it is often slow but is why it has been successful and we should make note of the fact that although we're not moving quickly enough there is lots going on around the world. It is wrong completely wrong to claim that nothing is going on on climate change.
Lots of countries are now moving in the right direction. They're not moving quickly enough. We should be clear that the US approach is unhelpful. It is not only to the fact that it's not participating in international processes, but it's actively bullying other countries not to act against climate change. We saw that happened last year at the International Maritime Organization where the Americans actively sabotaged the agreement that countries had reached to tackle emissions from shipping. they are now trying to bully the members of the international a energy agency to drop it focus on climate change.
So we should not underestimate just how much of a destructive approach the Americans are adopting here and let's be very clear about what their motivation is because they are transparent about it. They believe in American energy dominance. That means making the world dependent on American fossil fuels. It is the world's largest producer of oil. It is massively increasing its supplies of natural gas and it wants the world to be dependent on its fossil fuels because it will command greater power and make more money and it sees climate policy in the United States and worldwide as a barrier to that objective. And I don't think the rest of the world is going to go along with this.
-Andy, uh, let's talk about the rest of the world or more specifically China. You were talking about reliability in the political system in the United States. You see Obama going in one direction, you see Trump going in another direction. You see Biden go back towards Obama back the other way with the US under Trump in a second go-round.
And while the US keeps tacking one way or the other, China's been pretty deliberate going forward. the embracing of of green energy, EVs. talk to us about the stark contrast in these two major powers.
-Well, Mike, I think you're absolutely right. There really is such a stark contrast when we look at stability, predictability, reliability between China and the United States. I mean, it really is almost like night and day. But I think there's a deeper point here when we look at how does China approach these complex challenges like climate change. And I think what it does here is not so widely appreciated but it's actually doing well by doing good. And what I mean by that is China is being a good global citizen by actively participating, making significant advances in these areas. But it's not only doing this because it's the right thing to do, but it is also doing well. So, of course, there are industries that China has nurtured, invested in that now have become important contributors to climate change. Look at electric vehicles, look at batteries, more generally, solar. and I think this is again maybe a hallmark of the Chinese philosophy that underlies the governance that leads to this long-term predictable stable kind of environment that makes China a good interlocator a good partner for other countries around the world. But I think it's also worth pointing out that China does this by making this the ability to do well by doing good. And I think this is an incredibly important point for our audience to be aware of. And Bob, I know you don't want to do a lot of doom and gloom. We'll do a little bit more of it. But I want to go back to your earlier point that there are good things happening.
********
Americans can see for themselves that climate change is having an impact
****************
And when Trump was in office the first go round, we did hear a lot of governors. We heard businesses saying, "Look, if the US government isn't going to do it, we're going to do it." Are there areas where you see maybe perhaps some governors stepping up or other efforts in the United States that might mitigate some of this?
-Well, as we saw during the first Trump presidency, the economics of clean energy trump the ideology of the federal government. And it remains the case that clean energy, solar and wind, is cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. Even though the administration is trying to the development of clean energy, it is still cheaper.
And states like California are already all in on this. But even red states like Texas have significant renewable renewables investments and it and it's the basis of their power sector.
So I don't think we're going to see a revival of the fossil fuel industry. we may see a slowing down of the deployment of renewables but I don't think Trump can reverse this process because the economics work that way. We'll also see I think this Trump administration policy on so many issues of don't believe your eyes I think is just not going to be successful and Americans can see for themselves that climate change is having an impact across the country and that is means that the majority I think increasing numbers of Americans are going to recognize that they need to make this transition and can see all the benefits themselves. electric vehicles are cleaner and easier and require lower maintenance costs. And I think that experience that people have is just going to win through in the end despite what the Trump administration attempts. And Andy, that's a such an interesting point because the Trump administration thinks that this is actually going to be good for the auto industry by just, redoing things. but are are they in effect is Detroit kind of in effect perhaps losing out on that EV market which as Bob points out the rest of the world seems to be embracing? Yeah, I think so, Mike. I mean, so first of all, , to look at it from more of a glass half full perspective, there's all this talk of fragmentation, delobalization. I think that what's really happening here is the US is more and more becoming an outlier and isolating itself and the rest of the world is cohering around the Chinese approach right which is again making significant investments in technology implementing policies that really address these issues as well as provide jobs increasing safety etc as we look at EVs merging with autonomous vehicles that this really is not as bad perhaps as some people are portraying it. Now when we look at the US auto industry, I think it's absolutely correct that all around the world many countries, many markets are turning towards Chinese EVs, not just because they're inexpensive, but because they're high tech, they're well designed, they're safe, they're well serviced. And you look at even people like Bob Farley who's the CEO of Ford talk about how much he loves his Xiaomi SU7 and and how humbling it is for American automakers to see just how far Chinese companies have come and the US auto industry really does need to be global. I mean this is an industry that thrives on economies of scale. So, if it's only going to look at the the US market, I think that's really going to hurt the long-term prospects of American companies.
The other thing I would briefly add to this too is that as we see more and more people all around the world, especially Americans on social media, come to China, see what it's like here, it's going to be really hard to justify to the average American who's facing an affordability crisis that we all know about. Why can't they buy a $10,000 $20,000 Chinese EV again that is well designed, high tech, fun to drive, etc. So, I think it's hard to see how this will work out well in the long run for the United States across these these different perspectives. Gentlemen, thanks so much for your insights. Really appreciate it. We're going to have to leave it there, though. Thanks so much for [music] watching another edition of The Heat. ***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv_NzBtJs8M&t=235s
No comments:
Post a Comment