100 Days Of Trashing The Planet... And How YOU Can Stop It

Here are some of the major ways President Donald Trump has changed climate and environmental policy in his first 100 days.
|
Open Image Modal
On April 29, a week after Earth Day, Donald Trump will mark his 100th day in office.
Mike Segar/Reuters

President Donald Trump gave many signals on the campaign trail that his presidency would be a disaster for the environment. He called global warming a “hoax” and “bullshit,” vowed to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, and undo regulations to revive the fossil fuel industry.  

Almost 100 days into Trump’s tenure, the fears of environmentalists, scientists, public health advocates have been confirmed — and then some.

Before he’d even been sworn in, Trump nominated several climate deniers chummy with the fossil fuel industry to his cabinet, including former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as the head of the Department of Energy and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency ― a man who had sued the agency 14 times over industry regulations. Pruitt recently claimed, in contradiction to overwhelming scientific consensus, that human activity ― i.e. the burning of fossil fuels ― is not definitively the primary contributor to climate change. 

On the day Trump took office, a page devoted to climate change action on the White House website disappeared. Four days later, Trump signed executive orders reviving the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, a move that set the tone for a series of swift and sweeping changes to the nation’s climate and environmental policies that were soon to follow.

Dismantling environmental protections is one area where Trump has made quick work. “Donald Trump’s foreign policy and legislative agenda may be a confused mess,” wrote the Los Angeles Times’ David Horsey earlier this month. “But his administration’s attack on the environment is operating with the focus and zeal of the Spanish Inquisition.”

Here’s an abbreviated timeline of some of the major environmental actions Trump has taken in his first 100 days.

Open Image Modal
Trump signed H.J. Res. 38, which repealed the Stream Protection Rule, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Feb. 16, 2017.
Getty Images

Feb. 16, 2017: Stream Protection Rule nixed

Trump signed legislation repealing the Stream Protection Rule, an Obama-era regulation that sought to protect U.S. waterways from coal mining operations. The rule required coal mining companies to avoid practices “that permanently pollute streams, destroy drinking water sources, increase flood risk and threaten forests.” The regulation mandated the testing and monitoring of waterways before, during and after mining operations, and required companies that had used controversial practices like mountaintop removal mining to restore land to its “previous condition” once mining is complete.

Environmentalists and public health advocates lambasted the rule’s repeal. “Limiting the toxic waste coal companies can dump in our rivers and streams is not a burdensome government regulation; it is common sense and, quite frankly, the job of our federal government,” said Deborah Murray, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, in a statement.

Feb. 28, 2017: Clean Water Rule threatened

The president signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Waters of the United States rule, also known as WOTUS or the Clean Water Rule. Trump instructed the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider the environmental rule that designated which of the nation’s waterways should be protected under the federal Clean Water Act. The rule extended protection to 2 million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands that hadn’t been clearly covered under the original law. A repeal of the rule could threaten the drinking water of 117 million Americans and the health of many species, including endangered birds and marine life. Food safety and industries from farming to recreation could also be at stake if the rule is thrown out.

March 2, 2017: Methane emissions info scrapped

The EPA threw out a regulation requiring oil and gas companies to provide more detailed information about their drilling facilities, including reporting on what equipment they use and how much methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is emitted“Today’s action will reduce burdens on businesses while we take a closer look at the need for additional information from this industry,” Pruitt, the EPA administrator, said. The methane rule was seen as a critical component of the U.S. plan to slash emissions as part of the Paris climate agreement.

Pruitt has come under scrutiny for his close ties to the fossil fuel industry — connections that were clearly documented in a cache of emails released days after Pruitt’s confirmation as head of the EPA. 

Open Image Modal
EPA administrator holds up a miner's helmet that he was given after speaking with coal miners at the Harvey Mine on April 13, 2017 in Sycamore, Pennsylvania.
Justin Merriman/Getty Images

March 7, 2017: “Science” vanishes from view

As first reported by The New Republic, the EPA’s Office of Science and Technology removed the word “science” from its mission statement.

March 15, 2017: Car pollution standards rolled back  

As automakers pushed the Trump administration to lift regulations on their industry, Pruitt announced that the EPA would reconsider Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards for some vehicles.

Obama had introduced rules aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles, in a bid to reduce the carbon footprint of the U.S. transportation sector, which accounts for one-third of the country’s CO2 emissions. Based on those rules, carmakers would be required to have an average fuel-economy rating of 54.5 miles per gallon across its entire fleet sold in the U.S. by 2025 (or about 36 miles per gallon in real-world driving). According to an EPA report released in the last days of Obama’s tenure, this new standard would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 6 billion metric tons over the lifetime of the new vehicles.

Trump, however, has signaled that he wants to roll back these regulations as much as possible. As Vox explained, Obama’s fuel economy targets are more or less locked in through 2021, but the door remains open for changes between 2022 and 2025.

Pruitt said his agency would be taking a “fresh look” at the 2022-2025 standards. These rules are “costly for automakers and the American people,” he said.

March 16, 2017: Proposed budget would slash EPA funds

The White House released its preliminary “skinny budget,” which proposed deep and sweeping cuts to several science and environmental agencies, including the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The budget proposed a 30 percent reduction in EPA funding — a cut that could see hundreds of people involved in climate change change research losing their jobs and the elimination of more than 50 EPA programs.

The budget would also slash Energy Star, the voluntary initiative that boosts energy efficiency in appliances, electronics and buildings. Grants for ozone pollution cleanup efforts and international climate programs like the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, would cease, as would some funding for the cleanup of several of America’s most important water bodies, including the Great Lakes, the largest surface freshwater ecosystem in the Western Hemisphere, and the Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest natural estuary.

The budget also proposes halving the funding for enforcing the Clean Air Act, which aims at reducing air pollution, and removing funding completely for the Clean Power Plan (more on that below).

Open Image Modal
Delegates from West Virginia hold signs supporting coal on the second day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, July 19, 2016.
Aaron Bernstein/Reuters

March 28, 2017: Trump takes aim at Obama’s climate plan 

Trump signed the “Energy Independence Executive Order,” a directive that weakens many Obama-era climate and clean energy initiatives. First, the order called for a review of the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s signature program to fight global warming and one that was central to America’s plan to reach the goals laid out in the Paris climate agreement. The plan aimed to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The executive order also reversed Obama’s moratorium on new coal mining leases on federal lands, and instructed the Department of Interior (led by former Montana congressman and climate skeptic, Ryan Zinke) to begin reviewing several regulations for oil and gas extraction on federal lands, including national parks.

The directive made clear that the Trump administration would be abandoning Obama’s climate roadmap. “We have a different view about how you should address climate policy in the U.S., and we’re going in a different direction,” a senior White House official told reporters the day before the executive order was signed.

“I can’t get into ultimately what that means from an emissions standpoint,” the official added. “I have no idea.” 

Open Image Modal
Surrounded by miners from Rosebud Mining, Trump signs the Energy Independence Executive Order at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, March 28, 2017.
JIM WATSON/Getty Images

April 18, 2017: Pollution cleanup at power plants faces challenge

The EPA asked a federal appeals court to delay arguments over a rule that prevents coal-fired power plants from releasing toxic chemicals, including mercury, lead, arsenic and other pollutants, into the environment. In its court filing, the agency said it wants to first review the regulation as “prior positions taken by the Agency … may not necessarily reflect its ultimate conclusions after that review is complete.” 

The filing came days after Pruitt announced his intention to postpone compliance deadlines for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule, which was finalized in 2011 and is currently in effect. “I have decided that it is appropriate and in the public interest to reconsider the rule,” Pruitt wrote in an April 12 letter. 

The MATS rule has been tied up in the court system for years. Shortly after the regulation was finalized, a coalition of industry groups and conservative states ― including Oklahoma, which Pruitt then represented ― sued the EPA to stop it. In 2016, Pruitt sued a second time to block the regulation.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was expected to hear oral arguments on May 18 to determine whether the rule should be upheld, after a 5-4 Supreme Court decision led by Justice Antonin Scalia found the EPA had not adequately considered the regulation’s cost. 

This is an argument Pruitt has repeatedly touted, claiming that the MATS rule would put an undue financial burden on the energy industry. However, as the Associated Press notes, most power plants nationwide are already on track to comply with the new standards. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, companies have been able to accomplish this at a fraction of the expected cost.

The rule is expected to have a tremendous impact on public health. An earlier EPA analysis concluded that the regulation would prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks every year. 

Open Image Modal
Activists rallied in support of the EPA outside of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) Midtown Manhattan office, April 4, 2017 in New York City.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

‘100 days of harm’

April 29, 2017 — exactly 7 days after Earth Day — will be President Trump’s 100th day in office.

Rhea Suh, the president of the National Resources Defense Council, called the past three months “100 Days of Harm.”  

Like any arbitrary benchmark, the 100-day point of a new president’s term normally tells us only so much about what’s to come. In the case of President Trump’s all-out assault on our environment and health, however, we’ve already seen more than enough,” wrote Suh in a recent column. “Trump has acted again and again to undo half a century of bipartisan progress in protecting our rights to clean water, air, and lands. He’s moved to part ways with longstanding American values of conservation in the public interest. And he’s betrayed the covenant we’ve forged with our children to leave them a livable world.”

More than 60 percent of Americans said they disapproved of how Trump is handling the environment in an April Quinnipiac University poll. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they “are embarrassed to have Trump as president.” 

Activists have said it’s not too late to stop Trump’s anti-climate and anti-environment agenda. While his executive orders have garnered a lot of hype, a majority of them have not yet had a substantive impact on actual policy.

Concerned citizens just have to be swift, and smart, in combating these threats, advocates say.

“We can’t afford to focus all of our energy on reacting to the parade of bad ideas and morally bankrupt policies that are pouring out of Washington,” wrote Sierra Club’s Executive Director Michael Brune in an op-ed last month. “We must also push back with better ideas and smarter policies for the world that we want to create.”

Click through the slideshow below to learn more about what YOU can do right now to stop President Trump’s dangerous climate agenda: 

What You Can Do Right Now To Stop Donald Trump's Dangerous Climate Agenda
Strengthen city, county and state climate efforts(01 of07)
Open Image Modal
If the federal government refuses to stand up against climate change, it’ll be more important than ever for cities, counties and states to pick up the slack and become climate leaders. That means committing to divest from fossil fuels, embrace clean energy, set emissions targets and develop climate action plans, among other measures.

“The ominous signals coming out of D.C. point to even more work needed at the city and state level,” said Kate Kiely, national media deputy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. In November, the NRDC announced partnerships with 20 cities across the country from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Houston, Texas, to make strides in renewable energy.

According to Brune, cities could have an especially big influence in the climate change fight. “We should be pushing cities to go 100 percent clean energy and to reject natural gas and coal and other fossil fuels,” he said. “A majority of people now live in cities, so this could have a dramatic impact.”

In the U.S., at least 20 cities have made commitments to rely completely on clean energy.

“People should organize and get their own cities to move forward,” Brune said.

Contact your mayor, city council, or county or state representative and get them to set a timeline to stop using fossil fuels.
(credit:Eduardo Munoz/Reuters)
Push companies and institutions to divest from fossil fuels(02 of07)
Open Image Modal
There are a lot of things that the president can’t undo. He can’t stop the fact that solar and wind are cheaper than coal and gas. He can’t change the fact that dozens of businesses have already committed to clean energy,” Brune said.

As of December, more than 640 institutions worldwide, including several universities, churches and for-profit companies and banks, have pledged to divest from their fossil fuel investments. According to Go Fossil Free, a 350.org campaign, the commitments amount to more than $3.4 trillion.

Consumers should petition companies to ditch their fossil fuel investments, and students should urge their schools and colleges to do the same.

“As we wrap up the hottest year in history, we know that investments in the fossil fuel industry fund these climate impacts. That’s why it’s more critical than ever that we push our institutions to divest from the fossil fuel companies that are knowingly perpetuating the climate crisis,” Lindsay Meiman, U.S. communications coordinator for 350.org, told HuffPost.

Want to push a company, school or place of worship to divest from fossil fuels? 350.org has a list of resources to help you start a campaign. Or find an existing one to get involved in.
(credit:Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Put your money where your mouth is(03 of07)
Open Image Modal
Petitions and protests can be powerful, but moving your money speaks volumes too. As a consumer and as an investor, ensure you're not personally financing climate change. This means, for example, choosing banks that are free of fossil fuel connections.

“Your ATM card or checking account or your mortgage, these should not be financed by companies that are taking your checking fees or other payments to subsidize the Dakota Access Pipeline or finance drilling offshore. Make sure your money aligns with your values,” Brune said.

In September, Amalgamated Bank became the first North American bank to commit to divest 100 percent from fossil fuels. Aspiration has bank accounts that are fossil fuel-free, and Beneficial State Bank has credit cards that don’t invest in fossil fuels.

Anthony Hobley, CEO of the Carbon Tracker Initiative, said consumers should also ensure that their pensions, 401(k) or other retirement savings accounts are similarly not underwriting fossil fuel companies.

“A lot of pressure can be made through the financial industry,” Hobley said from London. “Ordinary people who hold pensions can put pressure on companies through their pensions. Put pressure on the people who manage your money and that’s one way to keep pressure on those companies too.”

The financial services companies that manage retirement accounts “aren’t used to getting many letters from the people whose money they manage,” Hobley added. “It wouldn’t take much of an organized effort for them to take notice.”

Are your investments supporting fossil fuels? FossilFreeFunds.org is a web tool that allows people to check whether their individual investments or employer-provided 401(k) is supporting coal companies, oil and gas producers, and fossil-fired utilities.
(credit:Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
Making a "financial case" for clean energy(04 of07)
Open Image Modal
Hobley believes the “best chance” we have of convincing Trump to care about climate change is to make a compelling “financial case” for renewables.

With new clean energy technologies getting more efficient and cheaper than fossil fuels, a transition to renewables is “inevitable,” said Hobley. It’s just a matter of time.

“Trump can no more stop this transition than a previous U.S. president could’ve stopped the transition from steam locomotives to the automobile or the typewriter to the computer. The technological genie is already out of the bag,” he said. “It’s not a case of ‘if,’ but ‘when.’ But the ‘when’ is important because of the 2 degrees budget, and that’s where a lack of political leadership or resistance can have a real impact.”

Clear political leadership from both the U.S. and China could mean a "smoother" and faster transition to clean energy. A lack thereof, however, could “make it easier for big oil and gas companies to stay in denial” — and that “would be to their detriment,” Hobley said. “It would mean pouring more money, billions or trillions of dollars, into fossil fuel assets that we simply don’t need.”

Trump now has the opportunity to make the United States a leader in clean energy.

“These are complicated and highly technical products,” Hobley said. “With an educated and skilled workforce, these are the kinds of things that should be manufactured in the U.S.”

Creating new jobs was a central part of Trump’s election platform. Maybe someone should remind him that the clean energy industry creates more jobs per unit of energy than coal and natural gas. In 2015, the number of U.S. jobs in solar energy overtook those in oil and natural gas extraction for the very first time.

A 2015 report by NextGen Climate America found that a transition to clean energy would add a million jobs by 2030 and up to 2 million jobs by 2050, while increasing the nation's gross domestic product by $290 billion and boosting household income.

We should be citing such figures and urging utility companies and public utility commissions to embrace clean energy. (Public utility commissions regularly hold hearings that are open to the public. Attend them, and voice your thoughts!)
(credit:Aaron Bernstein/Reuters)
Speak out!(05 of07)
Open Image Modal
What’s the single biggest way you can influence climate change? According to the NRDC, it’s speaking up.

“Talk to your friends and family, and make sure your representatives are making good decisions,” Aliya Haq, deputy director of NRDC’s Clean Power Plan Initiative, wrote in a blog post. “The main reason elected officials do anything difficult is because their constituents make them.”

In the coming months and years, “there will be mass mobilizations that folks should join to push back against Trump’s regressive policies and hateful rhetoric,” said 350.org’s Meiman. “Folks can engage online by joining online actions, signing petitions and contributing their voice on social media to push back on Trump’s agenda.”

You can also participate in protests in your area or join and support local nonprofits in their fight against climate change.
(credit:Pacific Press/Getty Images)
Reduce your own carbon footprint(06 of07)
Open Image Modal
Power your own home with renewable energy, invest in energy-efficient appliances and lightbulbs, and remember to weatherize.

“Building heating and cooling are among the biggest uses of energy,” said NRDC’s Haq. Make your home more energy-efficient by sealing drafts and ensuring your home is adequately insulated and ventilated too.

Also consider changing your diet. “Cut down on meat consumption or even eliminate it from your diet completely,” Brune said. “I do think that people can have a powerful impact on the environment just by eating less meat.”

It takes 14 times as much biologically productive land to produce 1 ton of beef as it takes to produce 1 ton of grain, according to the Global Footprint Network.

Global livestock is also responsible for 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic carbon emissions, data from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization shows.

Driving a fuel-efficient vehicle is another way to reduce your carbon footprint. You can also take steps to be more fuel efficient when you're on the road, no matter what car you drive.
(credit:Hinterhaus Productions/Getty Images)
Support environmental journalism(07 of07)
Open Image Modal
A major shortcoming of journalists during the presidential election was their failure to highlight climate change as a vital topic ― and to force Trump (and Hillary Clinton, too) to address this crisis.

Over the next four years, Trump needs to be held accountable, and the press must make climate change a central issue in his presidency.

The Society of Environmental Journalists, a nonprofit membership organization supporting environmental journalists in the U.S. and around the world, aims to “improve the quality, accuracy and visibility of reporting on the environment.” You can also support nonprofit environmental news outlets such as Inside Climate, Grist and High Country News.
(credit:Jewel Samad/Getty Images)

 

Dominique Mosbergen is a reporter at The Huffington Post covering climate change, extreme weather and extinction. Send tips or feedback to dominique.mosbergen@huffingtonpost.com or follow her on Twitter

Support HuffPost

At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.

Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go