Emily Dennis
November 9, 2020
I wrote this article to highlight the important issue of climate change. In the article, I discuss the different policies that are being created at the state level compared to the deregulation of policies at the federal level. The dichotomies of these two policymaking bodies play an enormous role in how we move forward on the subject of the environment.
The ever-so-serious and slightly overwhelming topic of climate change has been at the forefront of American policy for the past decade. In light of its urgency, new initiatives, laws, and organizations have been constantly created, reformed, and tossed aside. Understanding where the United States, as a collective entity, actually stands on the subject of climate change can be confusing. Under the Trump administration, very little effort has been made to support a more forward-looking and cohesive climate policy. In fact, many rollbacks from prior administrations have been implemented to allow more policies that favor harmful industrial practices.[1] Many of these policies and executive orders allowed for increased pipelining, logging, access to protected habitats, and the construction of new coal plants. With federal laws, also come new state laws. Since the start of the United States democracy, the powers of the federal government have expanded. In response, state powers have also become more encompassing. States have the exclusive powers to provide for public safety, health and welfare, all of which have become part of the broader scope of the climate change problem. So, as a lax climate policy has been preached from the current presidential administration, state and regional governments have started to take charge of climate policy as a response to the inaction and deregulation at the federal level. These measures are much needed in order to combat the worsening impacts of climate change.
Science has shown that environmental degradation not only disrupts the planet’s basic functions but can also have adverse health effects on society and those living within it. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has implemented various deregulatory actions to hinder progress toward combating the systemic problem of climate change. Since President Trump took office in 2016, there has been a total of 100 rollbacks to climate policy. As of July 2020, 68 of those rollbacks were already completed, with another 38 in progress.[2] Most of the policy attacks have been directed toward the areas of air pollution and emissions, followed by drilling and extraction.
The Trump administration has completed 19 rollbacks of air pollution and emissions standards by using executive orders and going through the EPA and Department of Transportation. President Trump has weakened the Obama-era fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for passenger cars and light trucks, stripped the California government of its authority to set stricter tailpipe emissions standards than the federal government, and replaced the Clean Power Plan from the Obama Administration.[3] There are also currently eight other rollbacks in progress, the most well-known being the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. Other in-progress rollbacks include an elimination of restrictions on newly built coal plants, and revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. However, it is important to note that these in-progress rollbacks would be easy to terminate in the extent of a new presidential administration.
In the second largest category of rollbacks, drilling and extraction, the current administration has completed 11 total rollbacks with another eight in progress. The administration has been taking away the building support for renewable and alternative energy sources. Most notably, President Trump has lifted the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, made large cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah, and loosened offshore drilling safety regulations that were implemented following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.3 The Trump administration has also been making headway for the approval of construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline, the opening of more land for oil drilling in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve, and proposing the opening of offshore oil and gas drilling off the coast of the United States.
To some, these new rules, proposals, and implementations that have come out of the Trump administration may not seem to have adverse or immediate impacts on daily life. However, the deregulatory actions will have increasingly negative effects on not only the climate system, but also how simple day-to-day life is lived for United States’ citizens. This should be of great cause for concern to the average citizen. Climate change has already caused more extreme weather, for example. The frequency and intensity of storms, fires, and all other types of natural disasters has grown due to warming global temperatures. As time goes by, it has been predicted that wildfires will burn for longer and cover larger areas, hurricanes will become more intense, temperatures will rise, drought conditions will persist, and a rise in sea levels will lead to increased flooding.[4] All of the natural systems on Earth are interconnected to some degree, meaning that one area being in flux will trigger responses throughout the other systems. On the human side of the problem, people living in coastal regions have experienced more damage and coastal flooding, leading to increases in insurance prices and even the loss of homes and properties. These major problems have caught the attention of various lawmakers and organizations, forcing them to take action in order to save their constituents and communities.
States have a multitude of ways to take action in terms of climate policy, as explained at the National Academy for State Health Policy’s annual conference in 2019.[5] A total of 24 states have joined forces under the U.S. Climate Alliance in order to enact the agenda laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump has moved to pull the country out of.[6] In some cases, states have taken even more aggressive actions. California, for instance, has set a goal to reach statewide carbon neutrality by 2045. The framework of achieving this goal was laid out in September 2018 by Governor Jerry Brown. According to the executive order, California plans on achieving their goal of carbon neutrality through a number of mandates. These included, but were not limited to, achieving and maintaining net negative emissions after 2045; having the California Air Resource Board work with relevant agencies to develop implementation policies and Scoping Plans, making it so that policies must seek to improve air quality while supporting health and economic growth; supporting climate adaptation and biodiversity; and engaging the support, participation, and partnership of community organizations. In line with California, there are currently 22 other states that have adopted specific targets of greenhouse gas emission reductions, with Louisiana, Montana, Maine, and New York all aiming to reach the goal of total carbon neutrality by 2050.[7]
Reaching carbon neutrality has been an essential part to reducing the adverse effects of climate change. This means that there must be a balance between carbon emissions and carbon absorption from the atmosphere. Storing excess carbon is known as carbon sequestration, and it is currently the only way to achieve net zero emissions. The main sources of carbon storage on the planet can be found naturally in the form of soils, forests, and oceans.[8] While there are few artificial storage units with proven widescale feasibility to date, it is critical for states to regulate businesses and industry to help counter, or even reverse, the output of carbon emissions. States are able to do so by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and usage in the areas of waste, transportation, energy saving programs, green buildings, water conservation, and even through community engagement.[9] Using renewable energy and offsetting the rest of emissions will also be necessary to reach the goal of carbon neutrality.
Not only do states need to find ways to control emissions standards and carbon neutrality, but they also need to focus on ways to implement these and other actions through policy. In order to do so, states have started to convene across sectors as ways to both mitigate and adapt to the issues of climate change. This has involved the creation of new government committees whose sole purpose has been to assess, track, and intervene in specific climate actions. For example, Governor Jay Inslee from Washington created the Washington Disaster Resiliency Work Group in 2019. This 30-member group, headed by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, is made up of lawmakers, tribal leaders, and representatives that work together to review and recommend policies for the state.[10] The group has been mandated to meet in-person at least seven times between September 2019 and November 2020 to present research and give out assignments.[11] The ultimate task of the group is to report to the governor whether or not this work group should remain permanent in the state. The report has been given a deadline of December 2020.
Other states have created similar organizations. In Maine, Governor Janet Mills established the Maine Climate Council. The Council’s job has been to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. To reach their goal, the Council has created seven different groups that have specific focuses on areas that impact climate change, such as the Transportation Working Group, and the Coastal and Marine Working Group. In New Jersey, Governor Philip Murphy signed an executive order in 2018 that created an interagency Energy Master Plan Committee. The Committee’s mission to establish a pathway to convert the state’s energy production to 100 percent clean energy by 2050 while also providing safe and regulated services to enhance the quality of life for its citizens.[12] The Committee has representatives standing for the interests of agriculture, families, community, health and human services, and public advocacy.
Another way states have gotten involved is through the protection of public health, environmental justice, and equity. Climate studies have often pointed to disproportionate impacts among low-income and minority communities. According to the United Nations, evidence has been found that suggests a relationship between climate change and the groups that suffer most from social inequality. The organization identified three ways in which this negative relationship occurs. First, disadvantaged groups have faced increased exposure to the adverse climate change impacts. This is evidenced in differences of income, asset, and gender inequality. For example, rural women tend to have less land value and more social restrictions, leading women farmers to work on marginalized land that has been exposed to greater climate-related problems. Second, these people have increased susceptibility to damage that is caused by climate change. The issue felt hardest where people live in floodplains, in lesser constructed houses. These people were more susceptible to flood damage than those living in houses built with higher-quality materials. Third, these groups have seen a lowered ability to cope and recover from the damage. This has been found to be linked with a decreased access to resources after a natural disaster occurs, including private and community sources.[13] While the environmental inequality problem has been an international qualm, there are some states that have taken steps to try and mitigate or eliminate the disproportionate impacts of climate change on these disenfranchised groups of people on a more local scale.
In Colorado, Governor Jared Polis signed a law that created an office of “just transition” to deliver programs and funding to communities majorly affected by pollution. This act has been built into Colorado’s roadmap to 100 percent renewable energy usage by 2040. The legislation has given funding to coal-transition workers, allowing them increased access to education and job training. In 2017, Hawaii established the Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission to create “ambitious, climate-neutral, culturally responsive strategies” for the sake of climate mitigation. In Rhode Island, Governor Gina Raimondo committed to 100 percent renewable energy by 2025. This mandates the state to purchase no less than 25 percent zero-emission vehicles by that year. A plan has also been put in place for zero-emission buses to be routed through so-called asthma “hot spot” zones. The goal of the buses has been to help ease the impacts of diesel emissions for both the environment and for those with chronic health issues.[14]
Through new programs, funding, mitigation, and renewable energy implementation, states are trying to get a handle on the negative impacts of climate change faced by their citizens. Healthcare systems are another sector that have been found to impact the climate, through greenhouse gas, smog, and toxic emissions. This becomes a positive feedback loop when citizens become ill due to the air pollution, warranting more trips to healthcare facilities, further increasing their usage, and thus their emission outputs. Public health ties in to creating a better environment for impacted citizens within these states. With this connection in mind, states have started to implement new laws that call for hospital renovations, tax-exempt hospitals, and the creation of a Healthier Hospitals (HH) coalition. Thousands of hospitals and healthcare systems committed to six challenges to improve sustainability performance under the HH initiative. The program has pushed these organizations to use safer chemicals, engage in leadership, provide healthier food options, use cleaner energy, reduce waste, and implement smarter purchasing formats.[15] States nationwide have contributed to this coalition. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation to guarantee hospital patients a healthy plant-based option at every meal. In California, a similar policy was enacted. Even Washington D.C. put forth the Healthy Hospitals Amendment Act of 2019, which requires that hospitals in the area improve nutritional quality of their menus.[16]Serious efforts to combat and mitigate climate change across various sectors continue to be made at the state level. It is quite evident these participatory states have been making an honest effort to try and combat the problem of climate change at local, regional, and state governmental levels. While there are a number of states that still fall in line behind the Trump administrations’ unjust policies of deregulation toward the climate, most have been more concerned with the well-being of their citizens. A cohesive climate policy has been far from apparent in the United States. However, great strides have been taken on behalf of the states’ efforts, as states have the sole right to provide for the common welfare of their citizens. The problem of climate change, at its core, is very disheartening. Yet the action taken at the state level has shown promising signs of hope toward an impactful, protective, and united climate stance that can be implemented on the national stage.
[1] National Geographic Staff. “A Running List of How President Trump Is Changing Environmental Policy.” National Geographic. National Geographic, August 17, 2020.
[2] Popovich, Nadja, Livia Albeck-Ripka, and Kendra Pierre-Louis. “The Trump Administration Is Reversing 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.” The New York Times. The New York Times, June 2, 2019.
[3] Popovich, Nadja, Livia Albeck-Ripka, and Kendra Pierre-Louis. “The Trump Administration Is Reversing 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.” The New York Times. The New York Times, June 2, 2019.
[4] “How Climate Change Is Fueling Extreme Weather.” Earthjustice, September 18, 2020.
[5] Cooper, Rebecca. “States Take the Lead to Address Climate Change .” The National Academy for State Health Policy. The National Academy for State Health Policy, December 2, 2019.
[6] Wallach, Philip A. “Where Does US Climate Policy Stand in 2019?” Brookings. Brookings, March 29, 2019.
[7] Yu, Alan. “An International Climate Road Map for the Next President.” Center for American Progress, November 1, 2019.
[8] “What Is Carbon Neutrality and How Can It Be Achieved by 2050?” What is carbon neutrality and how can it be achieved by 2050? | News | European Parliament, October 8, 2020.
[9] “Carbon Neutrality.” American University. Accessed October 9, 2020
[10] Cooper, Rebecca. “States Take the Lead to Address Climate Change .” The National Academy for State Health Policy. The National Academy for State Health Policy, December 2, 2019.
[11] “About the Washington Disaster Resiliency Work Group.” About the Washington Disaster Resiliency work group | Washington state Office of the Insurance Commissioner. Accessed October 9, 2020.
[12] Murphy, Phil. “Energy Master Plan: About the Energy Master Plan.” Energy Master Plan | About the Energy Master Plan, 2020.
[13] S. Nazrul Islam & John Winkel, 2017. “Climate Change and Social Inequality,” Working Papers 152, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
[14] Cooper, Rebecca. “States Take the Lead to Address Climate Change .” The National Academy for State Health Policy. The National Academy for State Health Policy, December 2, 2019.
[15] “Chemicals.” Chemicals | Practice Greenhealth. Accessed October 9, 2020.
[16] “New Coalition to Help Hospitals Nationwide Become Healthier in 2020.” The Humane Society of the United States. Accessed October 9, 2020.
Policy & Political Review 
It looks so official😆
LikeLike