Trump on Earth

When he first ran for President, Donald Trump was called the “chaos candidate”. And to bitter end, that has been borne out. But another kind of radical change has happened over the last four years, often out of the headlines.  So, for our last episode, we take stock of the past four years. 

There have been a number of changes in how the EPA, under President Trump, uses science. It has come with much criticism, including from former EPA officials. On this episode, we hear from a veteran EPA scientist on what drove him to leave the Trump Administration. Chris Zarba worked at the EPA for close to four decades. He was an official in the administrator's office of the agency and also directed the Agency’s Science Advisory Board Staff Office.  

The outgoing president has a few orders of business he’d like to take care of before January 20.  Among them is a controversial plan to drill for oil in the country’s largest stretch of untouched wilderness. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 20 million acres of mountains, tundra and coast lands. Underneath it, there are billions of barrels of oil. Similar plans have sparked fights for decades, so why the Trump administration push to drill there now?  Our guest for this episode is Tegan Hanlon, a public radio reporter for Alaska’s Energy Desk in Anchorage. 

President-Elect Biden ran as a moderate Democrat, but he also campaigned on an aggressive climate platform. How much of that agenda he can pursue could rest on who controls the US Senate, pending results of two runoff elections in Georgia.  We unpack what's coming next with Jody Freeman, law professor and director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School. Before that she worked in the Obama White House as counselor for climate and energy where she was the architect of the fuel-efficiency regulations for cars, which were later rolled back under President Trump. 

On this episode, we're looking at what role climate change and other environmental issues could play in deciding the election. We check in with reporters in three major battleground states--Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida--to find out. Our guests are Alex Harris, a climate reporter with the Miami Herald; Lester Graham, a reporter with the Environment Report at Michigan Radio; and Susan Phillips who covers energy for WHYY and StateImpact Pennsylvania.            

As Election Day nears, a majority of registered voters in the United States say climate change will be an important issue in making their choice for president. That’s according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted over the summer. And it’s a sharp contrast to the 2016 race when only 2% of likely voters listed climate or the environment as their top priority.  But a surprising number of people who say they care about climate change and the environment don’t actually cast ballots. That’s where the Environmental Voter Project comes in. For the past four years, the nonpartisan organization has been building what they call an army of environmental super voters. Their goal isn’t to get people to care about the environment more or to change minds about climate change -- it’s to get already registered environmental voters to vote - in the presidential election, and others. And they do it by precisely targeting these voters. On this episode we talk with Nathaniel Stinnet, founder of the Environmental Voter Project. 

Many of President Trump's environmental actions have faced court challenges. So how’s the administration doing? First we hear from Ann Carlson, professor of environmental law at UCLA about a climate change case just added to the Supreme Court docket. And then we take a look at how the Trump administration has been faring in court with Michael Gerrard, professor of environmental and climate law at Columbia University.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a feminist icon in the U.S., as one of the first women in many of the roles and rooms she found herself in over her life. Her death and the subsequent race by the Trump administration to confirm her successor will remake American law for decades, most notably by putting Roe versus Wade in jeopardy. But it could also remake environmental law.  On this episode, we look ahead at what the loss of RBG will mean for the environment. But first, we take a look back at her environmental legacy.   

President Trump calls himself a "great environmentalist” while at the same time gutting environmental protections and questioning the science around climate change. He often explains his actions by claiming regulations are job killers that hurt the economy. But even with the rollbacks, traditional blue-collar jobs like those in the coal industry are being lost. And some labor unions actually see efforts to stem climate change as their future. Enter the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor unions and environmental organizations that pushes for green job growth. It was created by a couple of odd bedfellows - the United Steelworkers union and the Sierra Club in 2006. Jason Walsh is the executive director. On this episode, we talk with Walsh about the election and how the future of the labor and environmental movements is tied together.

Trump's EPA recently announced that it was rolling back yet another big Obama-era climate rule. This time, the target was a rule on oil and gas emissions of methane, the powerful greenhouse gas that is the main component of natural gas. The Obama administration created the rule in 2016 and some big oil companies actually wanted the administration to keep it. But the Trump administration did away with it anyway. Why?  Our guest is Tim Puko. He covers energy policy at the Wall Street Journal and he explains that there is a legal strategy at play aimed at future climate regulations. 

It took 40 years but this week the Trump administration announced that it would open up 1.5 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The administration argues the decision will lead to jobs and generate billions of dollars in revenue, but opponents warn that opening the area to drilling will have a devastating effect on the region - which is a critical habitat for polar bears, migrating caribou and other wildlife. On today’s episode, we talk with Darryl Fears who covers the Interior Department and Wildlife for The Washington Post about what the ANWR win means. And we’ll also talk about a recent defeat. Citing a line from To Kill a Mockingbird, a federal judge in New York struck down a Trump administration decision to scale back U.S. government protections for migratory birds. "It is not only a sin to kill a mockingbird, it is also a crime," Judge Valerie Caproni wrote.

We are now three months away from an election that could determine A LOT, including what our future climate looks like. On this episode, we discuss the 2020 election through the prism of climate change. We talk with Marianne Levelle, a reporter with Inside Climate News, about Joe Biden's evolving climate policy and why he's gotten more aggressive on the issue. And we talk with Time magazine correspondent Justin Worland who recently wrote a cover story for the magazine titled "2020 is our last, best chance to save the planet. 

Federal courts recently handed down major decisions against big pipelines that would transmit oil and gas around the country. And other big pipelines are facing legal challenges that may put them out of business. What do these decisions mean for America's continued oil and gas buildout and the Trump administration's campaign for energy dominance? Our first guest is Ellen Gilmer, who tracks environmental policy & courtroom drama for Bloomberg News.  Then, to talk about what the Dakota Access decision means for the rights of America's indigenous people, we hear from Nick Tilsen. He's CEO of NDN Collective, a Native American rights and social justice organization based in South Dakota. Nick is a member of the Oglala Lakota Nation.   

President Trump ordered meat processing plants to stay open despite workers getting sick with the coronavirus. On this episode, Jacob Bunge, agriculture reporter for the Wall Street Journal, talks about the meat industry, worker safety, farmers' fears, euthanizing pigs and other issues with the food supply chain.    

Last week the EPA announced a major change to a landmark regulation that has reduced toxic air pollution like mercury from coal-fired power plants. The vast majority of these plants have already complied with the rule. So why did the EPA roll it back now?

If you've been following climate change, the coronavirus pandemic might feel oddly familiar these days. Many countries have implemented radical policies that would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago to slow the spread of the virus. Is this what it will take to solve the climate crisis? On this episode, climate journalist Emily Atkin on the intersection of climate change and coronavirus.     

How does doubt about science play out in a moment like we’re experiencing now where public health and millions of lives depend on good science and trusting scientists? Our guest is David Michaels, an epidemiologist and author of “The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception.”

Industry is struggling during the coronavirus crisis and one way the Trump administration has responded is by suspending enforcement of some environmental regulations. The EPA made the announcement on Thursday. Companies are usually required to report when they discharge certain levels of pollution into the air or water. But EPA is now telling them to monitor themselves for an undetermined period of time during the outbreak. Our guest is Rachel Franzin, energy and environment reporter for The Hill. 

Yes, Trump has cozied up to oil companies. He’s said we should have taken the oil from Iraq. And it does seem like we are cozying up to petro-state strongmen in Russia and Saudi Arabia. But is this any different from how the United States and other western powers have operated over the last 150 years? Our guest is Matthieu Auzanneau, author of the book Oil, Power, and War which looks at the deep history of big oil’s influence over the affairs of the U.S. and other Western powers.

At more than 100 years old, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was among the first environmental laws in the United States. Until recently, power companies and other industries could be prosecuted by the federal government for causing egregious bird deaths, even accidentally. Not anymore.  The Trump administration is proposing that only the intentional killing of birds would be prohibited under the act. This despite recent research that finds a nearly 30% decline in birds from North America - that’s a loss of nearly 3 billion birds - over the past 50 years. Our guest is Brad Bortner, one of 17 former directors and high-level appointees from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who co-signed a letter denouncing the move.