President-elect Trump has the opportunity to put national energy policy on a sound and reasonable basis. This will only be possible if the new government learns from past mistakes. [emphasis, links added]
During his first term, Trump used a combination of executive orders and agency rulings to halt the regulatory assault on the energy industry that began under President Obama.
Many of them have been challenged and struck down by liberal judges. The effect has been to hinder regulatory momentum rather than reverse it.
During Trump’s term, the domestic coal industry further entered runoff mode. In 2021, the regulatory onslaught has intensified again, having stopped four years ago.
Trump's initial efforts were ineffective because they were based on short-lived executive actions. His strategy has failed to eradicate the climate bureaucracy that has hijacked energy policy.
Most climate rules and regulations in the United States are implemented through administrative agencies and courts, not legislation.
With this in mind, Trump’s first priority should be to free U.S. energy policy from the artificial constraints of greenhouse gas emission caps and reestablish goals of reliability, abundance and low cost.
To achieve lasting results, he needs to restore the rule of law and leverage the Republican majority in Congress. Here are two actions to keep things running smoothly:
First of all, instead of simply withdrawing from the Paris Agreement again through an executive order, Mr. Trump needs to end the unconstitutional back-and-forth by sending a climate treaty to the Senate.
The chamber’s agreement is required for all binding international treaties, including the Paris Climate Agreement and the United Nations’ accompanying 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.
Treaties require two-thirds approval to pass in the House of Lords. With Republicans holding a 53-seat majority, a Senate vote would effectively kill the Paris Agreement, Restore U.S. control over national energy policy and eliminate much of the U.S.’s rationale for aggressive emissions reductions.
Considering that the treaty was adopted through extra-legal means, there should be no waiting period for withdrawal from the treaty.
Second, the Trump administration should remove the 2009 harm findings from the books. The ruling, written by the Environmental Protection Agency, forces the EPA to regulate carbon pollution from greenhouse gases because such emissions “endanger the public health and public welfare of current and future generations.”
This provision justifies the anti-fossil fuel bias of government agencies, especially under the Biden administration.
Rather than issuing new counter-investigations and fighting it out in court, The Trump administration should urge Congress to pass legislation that would limit the EPA by reaffirming Congress’ authority over the Clean Air Act.
The move would be consistent with recent Supreme Court rulings State of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), both found Executive agencies cannot implement major policy changes without explicit authorization from Congress.
For lawmakers, rather than unelected regulators, regulating carbon emissions to shape national energy policy is undoubtedly an issue of “huge economic and political significance.”
More specifically, Congress should take back control of air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, stating the following: Trace amounts of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) occur naturally and are not particulate pollutants regulated by the EPA.
Given the clear fiscal effects of halting climate-related government spending, this simple proviso could be included in a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill.
From fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2022, federal subsidies for renewable energy and electric vehicles total at least $90 billion. According to some estimates, Inflation-cut bill of 2022 will lead to more than $1 trillion in clean energy spending over 10 yearsmore than three times what the law’s supporters claimed.
These measures would return the political fight over climate change to its rightful place – in Congress. Despite its impact on the economy, national security, and financial markets, there has never been a real public debate on climate change in the United States.
Climate advocates need to defend their policies and convince the public with arguments, rather than just dismissing critics as “deniers.”
Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and repealing the 2009 Hazard Findings would allow the Trump administration to end state and local government decarbonization efforts aligned with the United Nations and the Net Zero Alliance among banks and financial investors.
Each of these violates federal law, restricts international trade and interstate commerce, violates antitrust laws, and discriminates against hydrocarbon producers.
Overthrowing the climate change bureaucracy would also disrupt Wall Street’s “sustainable finance” movement, or “environmental, social and governance” investing.
Without climate change as a guideline and moral armor, ESG is a disjointed collection of liberal policy aspirations that will soon disappear.
Read “Break” from The Wall Street Journal
