Trump on Earth: Recent Episodes
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.
This week, President Trump announced he was issuing final rules to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The new rules will limit public review of federal infrastructure projects to speed up the permitting of highways, power plants & pipelines.
Since its passage in 1970, NEPA has been used to ensure that federal agencies consider environmental effects of major projects.
When the proposed rules first came out, we spoke about the impact of these rollbacks with Sharon Buccino, senior director of the lands division of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Harvard is one of the latest in a series of wealthy institutions around the world announcing steps towards pulling their investments in the fossil fuel industry. But Harvard’s announcement has been called too little, too late. Bill McKibben, author of “The End of Nature” and cofounder of 350.org, reflects on what the divestment movement has achieved so far and how it all began. Also, why racial justice goes hand in hand with the fight for a cleaner environment, and the big takeaways that the coronavirus pandemic has for the climate crisis.
This episode comes from our friends at Living on Earth, another podcast about the environment that you should check out.
Harvard Law School is keeping tabs on the regulatory changes of the Trump Administration. What’s the lasting legacy of the nearly 100 environmental rollbacks?
There’s a growing understanding that racial disparities in the U.S. extend beyond policing, to public health and the environment. Communities of color are more likely to breathe polluted air, live near polluting industries and be exposed to toxic chemicals. And now COVID-19 is disproportionately threatening these same communities
Our guest is environmental justice leader Mustafa Santiago Ali. From 1993-2017, Ali served as Senior Advisor for Environmental Justice and Community Revitalization and Assistant Associate Administrator as a founding member of the EPA Office of Environmental Justice. But when the Trump administration proposed drastically cutting EPA’s budget and eliminating the Office of Environmental Justice, Ali resigned in protest. Now Ali is the VP of environmental justice at the National Wildlife Federation.
Joe Biden ran considerably to the right of his top rivals on climate policy. But now that he is the nominee, the Biden campaign is trying to convince climate activists that his campaign is taking the issue seriously.
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 onthe 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.
Did the Trump administration manipulate wildfire science to promote the logging industry? An investigation in the Guardian newspaper says yes.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is often called the Magna Carta of environmental law. President Nixon signed it into law 50 years ago this month. And President Trump honored the anniversary by announcing plans to drastically scale back the law.
On this episode, we dig into what many are calling Trump’s biggest environmental rollback yet with Sharon Buccino from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Word leaked a few weeks ago that the EPA is poised to finalize a rule to limit the types of scientific studies that can be used to create new regulations. The proposal -- named “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” -- would require public health researchers to release their raw scientific data in order for their work to be considered when the EPA sets regulations. These regulations dictate things like how much pollution companies can release into the air and water.
When the rule was first proposed, the agency received nearly 600,000 comments, the vast majority of them in opposition. One of those came from Dr. Mary Rice, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. She also studies the effects of air pollution on lung health. On November 14th, Dr. Rice was one of 5 scientists to testify before the House Science Committee on the proposed rule.
The Paris Climate Agreement was put in place to prevent catastrophic and runaway global warming. And since taking office, President Trump has been threatening to pull the U.S. out of it. Earlier this month, he made it official.
On this episode we hear from the man who helped put the U.S. in the agreement in the first place. Todd Stern was President Obama’s chief climate negotiator and now he's a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution.
President Trump came into office promising to save coal and coal jobs. Instead, the industry has continued to slide. The question now is--how far will it go?
The coal industry once employed hundreds of thousands of workers. Now, it's just about 50,000. And eight coal companies have declared bankruptcies in the last year. The latest is Murray Energy, the biggest privately held coal mining company in the country.
We check in on the state of the coal in the Trump era with Taylor Kuykendall who covers the industry for S&P Global Market Intelligence.
Wildfires have once again spread across California...and millions of residents have been living without power for weeks. The deliberate blackouts by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or PG&E, are an attempt to prevent power lines from starting new fires, a real possibility in dry and windy conditions.
Hundreds of the fires that started last year in California are believed to have been sparked by equipment from power companies — including the state’s deadliest fire. The Camp Fire was caused by a faulty electric transmission line. 85 people died and the town of Paradise was leveled.
Some have called for nationalizing PG&E to keep it accountable for the safety and maintenance of its equipment and the reliability of its service.
Across the country there's a patchwork of grids providing power to Americans, and they still mostly rely on fossil fuels to keep a steady flow of electricity. A couple of years ago, President Trump signed an executive order to speed up environmental reviews and approvals of infrastructure projects that are a high priority for the country, like making improvements to the grid.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has created policies to prop up financially struggling coal and nuclear power plants to ensure the electricity grid is resilient and reliable. But the main character in a new book by Wall Street Journal energy reporter Russell Gold looks beyond fossil fuels to power the grid. The book focuses on one man's mission to get more renewable wind energy online, and into American homes and businesses through transmission lines, and a more thoughtful connection of the nation’s grids. The book is called Superpower.
President Trump says a key phone call at the center of the Ukraine scandal was Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s idea. But Perry asserts that in his conversations with Trump, “not once, as God as my witness, not once was a Biden name ever mentioned."
On this episode we connect the dots between Perry and Ukraine with Jeff Brady, energy reporter for NPR. Get your whiteboards out. There are a lot of names.
Last month, the USDA quietly issued a new rule changing meat inspection standards for pork. Not only would the new rule mean slaughter houses could run their processing lines as fast as they want, it would also change who does the inspecting, giving the pork producers themselves a bigger role in the process.
We talk with Tom Philpott, food and agriculture reporter for Mother Jones magazine, about what the changes could mean for the safety of food and workers.
How do you change the minds of climate deniers and people -- say the President -- who doubt the scientific process in general? We ask a philosopher of science for some answers.
Lee McIntyre is a Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University and a Lecturer in Ethics at Harvard Extension School. He has written books about defending science and fighting back against “alternative facts.”
Now, McIntyre is out on the road talking to flat earth theorists and people who don’t accept current climate science.
Last time round, climate change got a measly five minutes and 27 seconds of airtime in the debates. During this primary season, it got seven hours in one night alone. CNN’s recent town hall provided each of the 10 candidates an opportunity to lay out their plan to deal with climate change. It was substantive. And it was long. On this episode we talk takeaways with Leah Stokes, a professor of environmental politics at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She read all the candidates' climate plans, watched all 7 hours, and has a lot to say about it all.
A top climate scientist resigned from the Agriculture Department this month. Lewis Ziska says the USDA buried his research. He's one in a line of researchers who've left the federal government because they claim the administration is censoring climate science.
Today, nuclear plants provide 20% of US power generation. But according to a report last year by the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists, of the 99 nuclear reactors nationwide, owners have shut down six in recent years. Seven more are slated for retirement. In the age of climate change, the Union’s director of energy research and analysis, Steve Clemmer, doesn’t want the demise of this carbon-free power source. In this episode, we talk with him about his report, The Nuclear Dilemma.
The Trump administration has rolled back more than 80 environmental regulations but some states are fighting back. No state has been more active in the resistance against Trump's environmental deregulations than California.
Case in point: last week, news broke that four of the world’s biggest automakers brokered a secret deal with the state to make more fuel-efficient cars in coming years, directly undermining the Trump administration.
On this episode we talk with Jared Blumenfeld, chief of the California EPA about how and why the state stands up to Trump.
Surrounding by several members of his cabinet, President Trump recently gave a speech at the White House touting his own environmental record. Even though he’s tried to rolled back environmental regulations at a record pace, Trump painted a picture of a country where economic growth has occurred as the environment has gotten cleaner.
On this episode, we fact check the speech with Rebecca Leber of the Mother Jones.
The Trump administration recently rolled out the affordable clean energy (ACE) rule. Critics say it basically does nothing to prevent climate change at a time when global warming is turning into an existential crisis. Our guest is Jody Freeman, a professor at Harvard Law School and founder of the school's environmental and energy law program. She served in the Obama White House as counselor for energy and climate change.
There wasn't a single question about global warming in the 2016 presidential debates. Will 2020 be different?
There are 23 Democrats vying for their party's nomination. Who has a plan to fight climate change (and who doesn't)? And what will President Trump's eventual Democratic challenger say on the subject?
Today take a look at where the candidates stand on climate change with Emily Holden, environment reporter for the Guardian.
Recent reports stress the urgency of reducing carbon emissions to check the worst effects of climate change. On this episode we listen in as some very knowledgable experts wade into the possibilities, obstacles and potential solutions.
The panelists: Paulina Jaramillo, associate professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and co-director of the Green Design Institute; Ivonne Peña, an energy analyst who has worked for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the U.S. and the Colombia's Energy and Gas Regulatory Commission; and Greg Reed, a professor of electric power engineering at the University of Pittsburgh's Swanson School of Engineering, and director of Pitt's Center for Energy and the Energy GRID Institute.
Forty years ago, the U.S. government began to take climate change seriously and for a short time period, politicians from both parties endorsed taking actions to avert what was by then understood to be an existential problem for humanity. So what happened? And what can we learn from the decade we almost stopped climate change but didn’t? Our guest is Nathanial Rich, a writer at large for the New York Times magazine. He wrote about this history in the new book, Losing Earth.
President Trump's push to have oil and gas drilling on public lands has hit some snags lately. A federal court recently halted leasing on 300,000 acres of public land in Wyoming after the court ruled the administration hadn't adequately considered climate change on its decision to lease the land. And late last week, a federal judge ruled Trump's efforts to lift an Obama era ban on drilling in the Arctic and North Atlantic oceans was unlawful. But despite all this, companies are still racing to drill on America's public land with the administration's blessing. So what does this look like on the ground? On this episode we find out.
Our guest is Rachel Leven, a reporter for the Center for Public Integrity. She’s been spending time in one of the hottest drilling spots in North America and wrote an expose about what happens when drilling overwhelms the agency tasked with protecting America’s lands.
Now that a proposal is on the table, some see it as a chance to create jobs and equalize the economy. But critics say it should laser focus on climate action.
What happens when environmental laws and rules aren't enforced? When the environmental cops just aren't on the beat?
Under Trump, EPA inspections have fallen to a 10-year low.
On this episode, we hear from Juliet Eilperin who has covered this story for The Washington Post.
Why does the EPA need inspections, penalties and prosecutions? And how is the view of the EPA's role changing under the Trump administration?
This week we're bringing you a interview with NPR's Howard Berkes about the proliferation of black lung disease among coal miners in Appalachia. It comes from our sister podcast called Energy Explained, produced by the public radio collaboration StateImpact Pennsylvania The interview covers not just this administration's current policies on coal mine safety but those of previous administrations. And it really is an important piece of reporting that Berkes and his team did.
If there were a billboard top 100 for policy ideas, the Green New Deal would be at the top of the charts for several weeks running. It’s not a policy, or a bill--more like aspirations that combine swift action on climate change with broad social and economic reforms. Alexander Kaufman has been covering the Green New Deal for the HuffPost, and he joins us to talk about what it tells us about where our politics -- and possibly the climate itself-- are heading.
The federal government is the nation's largest landowner, managing 500 million acres under the Department of the Interior. And while some expect that America's public lands are managed for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, others say the Trump administration has allowed interests like energy development to lead land policy.
Trump's first interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, literally rode into Washington on a horse a couple of years ago promising to be a land steward in the style of President Theodore Roosevelt. More recently, he signed his resignation letter in a now infamous, barely legible, chunky red pen. On this episode, we take stock of Zinke's legacy and what it means for the country's public lands. Our guest is Collin O'Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation. He wrote a recent opinion piece about Zinke in the Washington Post.
Three years ago, most of the world’s nations signed onto the Paris Climate Agreement, which committed countries to do their best to avert a climate catastrophe. Well, things are different now. President Donald Trump has vowed to take the U.S. out of the deal, but the vast majority of countries are still in it, and they met recently in Poland at the United Nation’s annual climate conference to discuss it. NPR’s Rebecca Hersher was there, and on this episode we learn more about the big takeaways.
When President Trump started his tenure he promised to repeal something called the ‘Waters of the U.S.’ rule. And this week he made good on that promise.
The revised definition of “Waters of the United States” eliminates protections for half of the nations wetlands and nearly a fifth of streams.
On this episode, we spoke with Ariel Wittenberg, who covers the Clean Water Act for E&E News, about the major changes to the Obama-era rule and their implications.
President Donald Trump’s performance and policies were front and center in many races across the country--whether candidates were for or against them--and the environment was on the ballot, too...in some cases, literally. A least nine states had ballot initiatives focused on environmental issues from banning offshore drilling to ramping up renewals. To get a post-election take on how the environment played into the midterm elections--and what’s next--we talked to George Cahlink, congressional reporter for E&E News.
Historically, polls have shown that environmentalists are terrible at voting. In the 2014 midterm election, more than 15 million environmentalists didn't show up on Election Day. And to be clear, all of them were already registered and already committed to environmental issues. So why are they so bad at voting? And will they turn out in the midterm elections?
We dig into the topic with Nathaniel Stinnett, founder of the non-partisan organization, Environmental Voter Project. He has a plan for getting environmentalists to the polls on November 6th.
President Trump says he'll look into a recent UN Climate Change report that predicted we have 12 years to drastically lower our carbon footprint or else the world will witness catastrophic impacts of climate change. He did this as his EPA is actively scaling back Obama-era regulations that would have cut back on America's carbon pollution. A lot of that work has been done in concert with lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry, including some who now work at the EPA. We know this in part thanks to the work of Eric Lipton an investigative reporter for The New York Times. We caught up with Lipton at the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference in Flint, Michigan.
You’ve probably heard by now that, according to a new UN report, the world has just over a decade to get climate change under control before it’s too late. And the report says we need a profound transformation to get there.
The report has got us thinking about an episode we aired last year about what life on Earth could look like with the worst case scenario.
David Wallace-Wells wrote an article last summer entitled “The Uninhabitable Earth.” It was the most widely read article in the online history of New York Magazine. Its imagined future was so grim, it spawned response articles like “Are we as doomed as that New York Magazine Article Says?” in the Atlantic Magazine.
On this episode, we talk to Wallace-Wells, to find out -- is it really as bad as all that?
Today we're bring you an episode of a podcast we've been enjoying lately. Democracy Works, produced by Penn State's McCourtney Institute for Democracy, aims to rise above the daily news grind and take a broader look at issues impacting democracy — which can be just about anything. If you’re looking for partisan bickering or hot takes on the news, this is not the podcast for you.
This episode is an interview with one of the most famous and vocal climate scientists. Michael Mann was on one of our earliest Trump on Earth episodes, but this conversation with him is a different take. We hope you enjoy it.
You can learn more about their podcast at democracyworkspodcast.com or search "Democracy Works" wherever you get your podcasts.
This administration is hell bent on dismantling environmental and human health protections, but judges are pushing back on Trump's deregulatory agenda in sometimes rapid fire succession.
People of faith are joining the ranks of the People Climate Movement, which takes to the streets this weekend demanding action. One religious leader tells us why climate change is becoming a top priority.
Fletcher Harper is an Episcopal priest and the executive director of GreenFaith, a member organization of the People's Climate Movement.
Coal was the engine of the Industrial Revolution and employed nearly 1.2 million people in Britain at its height. But the UK has gone more than 1,000 hours without using coal to generate electricity this year - the longest streak since Thomas Edison opened the country’s first coal power station in 1882. How did they do it? Our guest is Carolyn Beeler who covered this story for PRI's The World.
Less than a week after the announcement that Justice Anthony Kennedy would retire, President Trump nominated DC Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Kennedy’s replacement. In this episode, we learn more about Kavanaugh's environmental record and what cases he'd be weighing in on if confirmed. Our guest isMelissa Powers, a law professor and director of the Green Energy Institute at Lewis & Clark Law School in Oregon.
Professor Powers also talks about Justice Kennedy’s environmental legacy.Kennedy was the swing vote in Massachusetts v. EPA, considered the most consequential ruling on climate change. Without his vote, we might still be fighting to have CO2 recognized as a pollutant at all.
For months on end, Pruitt seemed to defy the laws of gravity at the EPA, maintaining his job through more than a dozen scandals. But Pruitt’s term has ended after it was reported that President Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly--presumably at the president’s behest--asked Pruitt for his resignation.
So the big question is--why now? And, importantly, what happens next?
On this episode Reid Frazier talks with Zack Colman, a reporter with E&E News.
When Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act on December 28, 1973, it made the United States the only nation on Earth to declare a basic right of existence for species other than our own. Currently, the Act protects more than 1,600 species across the country. Now, the landmark legislation is being targeted by industry, with support from the GOP. What happens next could determine the fate of hundreds of endangered species.
On this episode, we talk about the future of the Endangered Species Act with Jennifer Kahn. She wrote an article published in The New York Times magazine earlier this year titled, Should Some Species be Allowed to Die Out?
Earlier this month, Scott Pruitt gave a big gift to the chemical industry in the form of narrowing how the EPA will determine the health risks posed by chemicals. Is it a policy change that could prove deadly?
Before he was EPA administrator, before he was Oklahoma's attorney general, before he was even a state senator, Scott Pruitt was an unknown attorney in the suburbs of Tulsa, Oklahoma. What do Scott Pruitt's early days in public life tell us about his beliefs and motivations as he sets about dismantling EPA regulations?
On this episode, we talk to two reporters who dug into this question to find out more about the man President Donald Trump picked to lead the EPA. Joe Wertz is a reporter for State Impact Oklahoma and Tom Dreisbach is a producer for the NPR podcast Embedded.
From its inception, science has been at the core of the EPA’s mission. It’s used science about the health effects of industrial pollution to make our air and water cleaner. But EPA administrator Scott Pruitt wants to limit what kinds of research the agency can use when making regulations. To that end, he has introduced the Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule. Transparency--sounds pretty good, right? But with this new rule, the agency would limit what kinds of research it can use when making regulations. EPA scientists would no longer be allowed to use studies that don’t make their raw data available to the public. That includes most public health studies because these often use confidential patient information that is generally shielded from public view.
On top of that, the rule would exempt certain types of industry-funded science. This has many scientists furious. Nearly 1,000 of them signed a letter calling the proposal a way to run “political interference in science-based decision making.”
To learn more about this issue, we turned to someone who ran a big science program at the EPA. Bernard Goldstein was assistant administrator for research and development at the agency during the Reagan administration. He’s now a professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health.
First class flights, pricey office furniture, a soundproof booth and a security detail the size of a small police department. And don’t forget a rented room inside a condo owned by a lobbyist’s wife. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is embroiled in a series of concentric ethics scandals, and it’s led to speculation about his future there.
Today we ask how Scott Pruitt got into his current situation, why he still has a job at EPA, and whether the scandals will impede his attempts to dismantle environmental regulations.
Our guests are NPR’S Rebecca Hersher and Jennifer Ludden, and the New Republic's Emily Atkin.
The Trump administration says it wants to open up nearly all of the country’s oceans to oil and gas drilling. So what will this mean for communities around the country that depend on our coasts for their livelihood? What will this mean for our oceans?
More than 60 percent of Alaska is owned by the federal government. That's 225 million acres; a plot of land bigger than Texas. So if any state is going to be impacted by environmental decisions made in Washington D.C., it's Alaska. On this episode, we talk about those decisions being made in D.C. and their impacts on the 49th state with two of its experts. Elizabeth Harball is a public radio reporter with Alaska's energy desk in Anchorage, and Liz Ruskin is the D.C. correspondent for Alaska Public Media.
There have been lots of presidential orders and proclamations, and many proposals are in the works. But just how effective has Trump been in changing environmental policy during his first year in office?
To answer that we spoke with Dan Farber, an environmental law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He also blogs about these issues at legal-planet.org.
Rolling back regulations is fundamental to the philosophy of the Trump administration. And a lot of the action has been directed towards environmental regulations. According to a review done by the Washington Post, 63 environmental rules have been targeted across all agencies. That’s more than other policy area. So what’s the case for environmental regulations? Do they work? Do they make our lives better in any measurable way? We hear a lot from the Trump administration about how regulations are job-killers, but aren’t they also life-savers?
The Trump administration has rolled back 60 environmental policies at last count. ProPublica reporter Talia Buford dug into the overturning of one of EPA rules that took the agency a decade to craft and the Trump administration just months to undo. The rule was meant to keep toxic waste out of rivers and streams. Now it's in limbo as the EPA has decided to open it back up for review. The story of what happened with this rule is a case study in how the EPA operates under the Trump administration.
The whole concept of "clean coal" is wonky. Real technical, real complicated. Not as simple as President Trump would have you believe. But what does the term actually mean? In truth, it can mean a lot of different things. When many people talk about clean coal, they are talking about cleaning up carbon dioxide out of coal emissions. In Wyoming, where the majority of this country’s coal is still mined, clean coal is looked at as a possible economic savior. It’s a big deal for a lot of other people, too. Forty percent of the world still depends on coal for electricity, and it’s still one of the cheapest and most abundant fuels. But CO2 from coal and other fossil fuels is causing global warming. So it would be nice if we didn’t produce so much of it from burning coal. On this episode, Inside Energy’s Madelyn Beck takes us on a 360 degree view of clean coal to answer some of our questions.
We all remember the financial and auto bailouts during the Great Recession. They arguably saved significant parts of the economy from even further damage. The Trump administration says the federal government now needs to step in to save the coal and nuclear industries. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has proposed a rule that will force the electric grids in some parts of the country to basically guarantee profits for coal and nuclear plants. But who will pay for that guarantee? Anyone who gets an electric bill. On this episode, we pick through this plan with someone who's been following it closely. Ben Storrow is a reporter for E&E News and he says the most important thing to understand is that the grid, like so many aspects of our economy, is changing because of new technology.
A few weeks ago, President Trump approved the largest rollback of federal land protection in our country’s history. Trump’s announcement to drastically slash the size of two national monuments in Utah - Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante among additional changes to other national monuments - was not a surprise. But it has been controversial. The day after Trump signed the order, the outdoor recreation company Patagonia posted a message on its website under the headline, “The President Stole Your Land.” Patagonia has joined a flurry of lawsuits challenging whether President Trump has the authority to undo or change monuments created by past presidents. So does the Antiquities Act allow presidents to roll back national monuments? On this episode, we hear from John Ruple, associate professor of law at the Wallace Stegner Center for Land Resources and the Environment at the University of Utah. He’s also a member of Friends of Cedar Mesa, one of the groups that is suing President Trump over his revisions to Bears Ears.
Can scientists who get grant money from the Environmental protection agency be objective enough to serve on its advisory boards? According to Administrator Scott Pruitt, the answer is “no.” Today’s episode examines one aspect of the sweeping changes taking place at EPA: Scott Pruitt’s bar on scientists who’ve taken money from the agency also serving on its scientific advisory boards. These are the scientists who help EPA evaluate the science behind its regulations. Some people who weren’t included in this new policy: people who’ve taken money from industries the EPA regulates. But scientists who receive grant money from the agency had to choose between keeping their funding or serving as advisors. We talk Robyn Wilson, a researcher from Ohio State University, who says it’s a false choice and is refusing to step down.
The Trump administration has been pulling back federal environmental regulations as fast as it can. The legal argument is that states should be the ones to decide what level of environmental protection and regulation is right for them. In practice, many regulations related to oil and gas development are already in the hands of states, and even local governments. On this episode, we look at how one state is handling one of those regulations, a pretty basic-sounding rule that says how far oil and gas wells must be from someone’s house. What should this number be? What is a safe distance? That is a big, contentious question in places where oil and gas drilling is happening near people. With help from our friends at Inside Energy, we find out how that issue is playing out on the ground.
In October, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt ordered scientists who receive EPA grants to either end their grants or get off EPA scientific advisory boards. What about industry-backed scientists? They can stay
In this episode of Trump on Earth, we talk with Washington Post Environmental Reporter Brady Dennis about industry influence at EPA as well as latest climate-denying nominees to top environmental posts and the U.N. climate talks in Bonn, Germany.
About three quarters of the 640 million acres of land that the federal government owns is managed by the Department of the Interior. And under the leadership of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, the Department of Interior is poised to shrink the borders of at least four national monuments, potentially opening up hundreds of thousands of acres to development. On this episode, we try to find out who Ryan Zinke is by learning about the man Zinke calls his biggest inspiration. Teddy Roosevelt basically invented the national parks system, and has arguably done more for conservation than anyone else in U.S. history. So if the top steward of public lands is modeling himself after a conservationist, why is he making headlines for rolling back land protections? Opening up federal land for more oil and gas development? We find out with the help from our friends at Inside Energy.
As Congress pays out more than 36 billion dollars in disaster relief, the General Accounting Office recommends that the federal government find ways to minimize the economic impacts of climate change. President Obama started moving in this direction. He signed an executive order requiring infrastructure like roads and bridges be designed to survive flooding and other consequences of climate change. But President Trump issued an executive order that pretty much undid it. Our guest is Daniel Kreeger. He's the executive director of the Association of Climate Change Officers. which helps businesses and others plan for climate change. Kreeger says we built infrastructure - like highways and sewers - based on the weather we’ve had over the last century. But that’s changing.
The NY Magazine article "The Uninhabitable Earth" presents a portrait of a worst case scenario of climate change in which the planet gets so hot, humans can no longer live there. It imagines a future so grim, it spawned response articles like “Are we as doomed as that New York Magazine Article Says?” In this episode, we talk to the author of the article, David Wallace-Wells, to find out -- is it really as bad as all that? And does fear motivate people to action or acceptance?
On Tuesday, administrator Scott Pruitt signed the paperwork to revoke the Clean Power Plan. But what is the case for its repeal? And what happens next in the search to rein in carbon dioxide pollution?We’ve heard from many of the proponents of the Clean Power Plan over the past few months, but on this week’s episode, we talk to someone who opposed it and hear why he thought it should have never been written in the first place. Jeff Holmstead has worked on environmental issues for previous Republican administrations, including a stint as assistant administrator for air and radiation at the EPA under George W. Bush.
Sam Clovis is Trump's pick for head scientist at the USDA. He has been many things -- Air Force fighter pilot, conservative talk show host, defeated U.S. Senate candidate, co-chair of Trump’s presidential campaign. But one thing not on his resume: scientist. We learn more about why we should be paying attention to what happens with Clovis from Mike Lavender of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Mike focuses on food and environment issues and he’s written that Clovis’s confirmation would be a direct violation of the law and would also risk the safety of our food and water.
While the world has been paying attention to President Trump's action on immigration and health care, his administration has been steadily reshaping environmental policy. But how far has it gotten? And what can we expect out of Washington in the coming months?
Increasingly sophisticated climate science is able to tell us a lot more about the role climate change is playing in extreme weather events. But while Hurricane Irma was bearing down on South Florida last week, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said now is not the time to talk about climate change and its impacts on these terrifying storms. So if not now, when? Ben Kirtman is a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. We caught up with him in Atlanta where he had evacuated from hurricane Harvey. He says now is exactly the time when it’s most important to talk about climate change.
Arlie Russell Hochschild spent five years in some of the most polluted parishes of Louisiana trying to find out why some of the people whose lives have been ravaged by the oil and petrochemical industry are deeply hostile to environmental regulation. She is the author of Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right.
What is the future of renewable energy under Donald Trump? Are recent gains made by solar and wind in jeopardy? Or is the momentum these industries have gained over the past eight years made them borderline unstoppable. This week on the Trump on Earth podcast we talk with a man who's literally writing the book on this topic. Varun Sivaram has been following following energy policy as the Phillip D. Reed fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Taming the Sun: Innovations to Harness Solar Energy and Save the Planet (MIT University Press, February 2018).
Only 11 percent of conservative Republicans say climate scientists understand the causes of climate change very well. So, can anything change their minds? One conservative says ‘yes’. Bob Inglis is a former South Carolina Republican congressman who now heads a group called republicEN.org which aims to promote ‘free market’ solutions to climate change.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds projects that protect and restore the largest system of fresh surface water in the world. Can it be saved?
In this episode of Trump on Earth, we talk with environmental justice lawyer Lisa Garcia, who was senior adviser to the administrator for Environmental Justice at the EPA during the Obama Administration. Garcia explains just what environmental justice is, why we need it, and how she plans to keep fighting the good fight in spite of the cuts.
In this episode, we talk with Ann Carlson who for years has been watching the UN climate negotiations that led to the Paris agreement. She’s a professor of Environmental Law and the director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA. In her view, pulling out of Paris really isn't doing very much except that it's telling the world what the world should already know.
President Trump’s proposed 2,000-mile long, 30-foot high border wall would obstruct more than just a pretty landscape. It could bring an end to the species that live in the lush coastal grasslands, searing hot deserts, and staggering mountain peaks in the path of the wall. In this episode of Trump on Earth, we team up with a fellow environmental podcast, Generation Anthropocene, as Stanford student Maddy Belin talks with Penn State University Professor Jesse Lasky for their episode entitled “Oh Right, the Animals.”
About one-third of the country is federally-owned. That means it belongs to all of us -- the public. But that also gives the President a lot of power over these places. Today on Trump on Earth, we’re taking a closer look at what’s at stake, and what we can expect next for our public lands.
Somewhere between 97 and 99 percent of scientists are convinced by the evidence that climate change is real, human caused, and a problem. But at a recent hearing held by the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, only 25 percent of the witnesses reflected that position: Michael Mann.
This weekend, thousands of scientists will be marching to protest the Trump administration. On this episode we hear from three of them.
Last week — to the surprise of no one — Donald Trump issued an executive order to begin dismantling the Clean Power Plan. But the country's keystone rule on climate change isn't dead yet.
Trump’s first months in office have left us with more questions than answers. But on environmental policy, some themes are emerging that will likely shape a lot of what’s to come. In this week’s episode, we dig into three key storylines to watch with Rebecca Leber of Mother Jones and The Atlantic’s Rob Meyer.
Trump’s big push to rollback federal regulations could impact everything from the price of healthcare to the size and scope of the EPA. It might also leave the USDA and FDA with fewer powers on food safety.
Trumpism may not be the most coherent of political philosophies. But when White House strategist Steve Bannon recently told a crowd of conservative activists that one of their major goals is “deconstruction of the administrative state,” he brought into focus a theme that may very well come to define a large part of the Trump era. In fact, we’re already starting to see it take shape at the Environmental Protection Agency.
On everything from healthcare to immigration, President Trump has been busy doing 180s on Obama-era policy. This week, he set his sights on a controversial expansion of the Clean Water Act known as the Waters of the U.S. Rule, or WOTUS. But pulling the plug might not be so easy.
There are still chapters to be written in the larger fight over the Dakota Access pipeline. But as of Thursday, the months-long protest encampment at Standing Rock is no more. So what have we learned? And could the historic protest be a prelude to larger national conversations on energy, Native American sovereignty and climate change?