Trump’s Latest Abatement of Environmental Protection Policies
Policy Analysis by Jana Al Hassanieh, Staff Writer
July 1st, 2020
Ever since Trump took office, he has been continually working on rollbacks to environmental protection policies. A brief history reminder: One of his first decisions during his presidency was his announcement of the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement for climate change mitigation, a decision that does not become official and take effect until the November 4th in 2020. The Paris Agreement is a non-binding agreement, so, to tell the truth, Trump could have basically ignored its pledges, goals, and targets without conceitedly blurting out the United States’ withdrawal from theagreement as an excuse of the “unfair financial and economic burden imposed on Americans.” Nevertheless, such an announcement screams loud and clear that Trump’s Administration couldn’t care less about the international efforts mitigating climate change.
While the American nation is in havoc from the COVID-19 pandemic and the “Black Lives Matter” police brutality violence - President Donald Trump has issued executive orders and proclamations pushing back environmental protection policies. However, one must note that these rollbacks do not solely have negative impacts on the environment, but as well violate human rights and social justice.
On June 4th, and as a form of accelerating the nation’s economic recovery from the COVID-19 emergency, Trump issued an executive order that aims to speed up reviews of transportation infrastructure projects, including mines, pipelines, and highways. He called for waiving, exempting, and excluding “unnecessary regulatory delays” for compliance to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). He further gave the full authority instead to the executive departments and agencies for making “alternative arrangements” in case of an “emergency.” Hence, in this executive order, Trump’s streamlining of an “outdated regulatory system that has held back the economy with needless paperwork and costly delays” means that setting aside critical environmental protection laws, such as the NEPA, ESA, and CWA, will help the economy recover better and faster.
However, President Trump has ignored the fact that overlooking the proper assessment of the possible environmental damages of an infrastructure project likely has negative impacts on the Americans’ health and violates their rights for speaking up prior to projects’ implementation. This action also promotes social injustice as it may damage the natural environment and place vulnerable populations at risk.
Other than Trump’s negligence of crucial environmental protection laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, the Trump administration plans to limit some protections set forth by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) by arguing that the regulations and penalties are too harsh for “unintentional” and “incidental” killing of birds by wind turbines, mining and construction sites, and oil and gas companies. Lifting such penalties makes it harder for holding businesses and companies legally accountable and liable for “incidental” bird-killing. Additionally, such plans diminish the likelihood that these entities take measures that enforce bird protection and, consequently, endanger migratory bird species.
Furthermore, on June 5th, President Trump issued a proclamation to override a proclamation by President Obama from 2016 that protected and reserved the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.
Thereby, Trump’s recent proclamation has revoked fundamental protection for an area of 12,725 square kilometers, rich in diverse ecosystems, and opened the Monument for commercial fishing. On June 17th, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, and R. Zack Klyver who is the lead naturalist for Bar Harbor Whale Watch Company filed a lawsuit regarding this recent proclamation. The lawsuits’ defendants are President Trump, David Bernhardt who is the Secretary of the Interior of the United States, Wilbur Ross who is the Secretary of Commerce of the United States, and Dr. Neil Jacobs who is the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. The lawsuit claims that this proclamation was “wholly without statutory or constitutional authority and is therefore unlawful.” According to the Antiquities Act of 1906, the President of the United States of America is only authorized to create, reserve, and protect national monuments and lands but not to revoke these protections. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is the sole entity that can “abolish, limit, or retain” these environmental protections. To date, neither the White House Press Office nor the departments of Commerce and the Interior have responded to the lawsuit.
Trump’s recent political appeals, abating environmental protection policies, are short-sighted deregulatory actions aimed at benefiting only big corporates at the cost of the environment and public health. These policies were put in the first place to protect the public from corporate abuses in pursuit of profits. However, such policy decisions not only allow big commercial corporations access to so-called protected lands and endangered species but also guarantee that such corporations will pay for campaigns for Trump’s re-election.
Put simply, these environmental regression policies are irresponsible actions governed by greed and power! Unconscionable decisions putting corporate profit ahead of environmental protection and social justice!
Quoting the medical anthropologist and physician Paul Farmer: “Human rights violations are not accidents. They are symptoms of deeper pathologies of power and are linked to the social conditions that determine who will suffer abuse and who will be shielded from harm.”
It is no secret that at this time, American’s conscious voting is the major action that will make a massive difference for the near future. November’s presidential elections will determine whether Trump’s administration will keep delaying efforts towards proper environmental protection.