Chris Wright, Major Shift in US Environmental Policy

Chris Wright, CEO of Liberty Energy and a vocal proponent of the oil and gas industry, has been nominated by President-elect Trump to lead the US Department of Energy.

Known for his skepticism about the severity of climate change and his criticism of renewable energy, Wright’s appointment signals a shift in energy policy toward bolstering fossil fuel production and reducing regulations. Wright, who has no prior government experience, is an advocate for nuclear energy expansion but dismisses net-zero emissions goals as costly and impractical. Industry allies have praised his “practical approach” to energy policy, while environmental groups have expressed alarm, calling his selection a direct threat to clean energy initiatives and climate action.

Wright has described climate change as a manageable challenge rather than a pressing crisis and has openly criticized stringent regulations, particularly in his home state of Colorado. While supporters laud his expertise in the energy industry and his role in advancing the shale revolution, critics argue that his views and lack of governmental experience undermine the Department of Energy’s role in fostering sustainable and scientifically driven solutions to address global energy and environmental challenges.

In order to better see the possible changes in the US environmental policy, Wyoming Star spoke to Mathias Vuille, a climate scientist in the Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at the University at Albany.

Wyoming Star: After the 2024 US presidential election, we are moving towards Donald Trump’s second presidency. Given his past stance on climate change, what shifts in federal climate policy might we anticipate when he returns to office?

Prof. Vuille: The changes in climate policy will without a doubt be profound.

Trump will make every effort to enhance investments in fossil fuels, curb the development of renewable energy, and limit investment in research and development of climate mitigation efforts.

He will ignore or downplay the risk of climate change and try to replace President Biden’s ‘Inflation Reduction Act,’ which was designed to help scale up renewable energy sources in the US. The only good news here is that this law has poured a lot of money into many parts of the country—many under Republican control—which might make it more difficult to repeal the law.

Wyoming Star: Do you expect Trump’s environmental policies to impact US involvement in international climate agreements, such as the Paris Agreement?

Prof. Vuille: Yes, absolutely. Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement during his first term, and he called climate change a hoax invented by China.

He will without a doubt pull us out of the Paris Agreement again, and this time he only needs to wait one year for this move to come into effect.

Under the Biden administration, the United States committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% relative to 2005 by the year 2030. This commitment will no longer be honored under a Trump administration. It is also important to keep in mind that the United States is still the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter when considering the cumulative emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, having the largest emitter leave this agreement also reduces the political pressure for other big emitters, such as China and India, to move forward with implementing their own clear air technologies. As a whole, this jeopardizes global progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Wyoming Star: What changes might we see in the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and air quality under a Trump-led administration?

Prof. Vuille: The emphasis on boosting domestic fossil fuel production will certainly not help in reducing US greenhouse gas emissions. However, the emissions in the US (both overall and per capita) have been steadily decreasing over the past 15 years, regardless of which administration was in charge. This trend is largely going to continue as it is to some extent market-driven, with coal becoming increasingly less financially viable and being replaced by natural gas (which has a lower carbon footprint) and renewable energy sources that are economically more competitive.

Wyoming Star: What impact could Trump’s policies have on the EPA’s regulatory power, especially concerning environmental protections and climate standards?

Prof. Vuille: It might have significant impacts. During the first Trump administration, a coal lobbyist was put in charge of the EPA. Something similar will likely happen again. Trump might also try to further dismantle the EPA and break it up into smaller, decentralized units with limited functionality.

I expect that many of the attempted changes to the EPA’s regulatory power will end up in the courts with unknown outcomes.

The biggest impact, however, might be on the EPA workforce, which was highly demoralized during his first term and which led to an exodus of long-term employees, know-how, and intellectual capacity from the agency.

Wyoming Star: How might Trump’s environmental policies impact efforts to protect critical ecosystems, such as wetlands, forests, and coastal areas?

Prof. Vuille: This is a major area of concern, as Trump will likely move quickly to remove the protected status from many such areas. Coastal areas might also be endangered through enhanced offshore drilling.

Wyoming Star: How might a Trump administration handle climate change education and the communication of climate science to the public?

Prof. Vuille: Much of the climate education agenda is set at the state level, so I am a bit less worried about him being able to significantly affect that, at least in the short term.

It is up to climate scientists and climate activists to speak up against misinformation and keep informing the public about the dangers and impacts we are facing because of man-made climate change.

Nonetheless, this country has seen an erosion of trust in science and scientific institutions, and having a president that is surrounding himself with many members that share his anti-science sentiments and rhetoric is certainly not helpful. Another potential impact on climate change education may be the loss of expertise. Many leading climate scientists in the United States are foreign-born, as are many of the early-career scientists and PhD students carrying out climate change research. The United States has just become a lot less attractive for foreign climate scientists to live and work here, and as a result we may see a reduced influx or even a loss of climate change capacity in this country. Many foreign universities and research institutions are already trying to lure scientists away from the United States.

Wyoming Star: How might a Trump administration influence federal funding for climate change research?

Prof. Vuille: Funding for climate change research will certainly be affected. Basic research in particular might be vulnerable, as it is an area where the research often does not result in immediate societal benefits. Funding for climate aid and payments for international loss and damage funds aimed at helping developing nations adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change will likely also be cut. These cuts are particularly damaging as the United States is already failing to meet its commitment as things stand, and these funds are directed to those countries that are the least responsible for climate change yet the most affected by it (such as small island nations, threatened by sea-level rise).

Wyoming Star: From a paleoclimatology perspective, what long-term consequences could a rollback in climate protections have on future climate trends and mitigation efforts?

Prof. Vuille: The paleoclimate perspective is really important because it is the only way that we can understand how unusual our current and future climate is or will be when seen in a long-term historical context. It shows that we have reached uncharted territory, with climate impacts that humanity has never faced before at this scale.

Rolling back climate protections does not only make us more vulnerable now, but it also limits the window of opportunity we have to take action that would ensure global warming stays below a level where sea-level rise and ice sheet melt spiral out of control and impacts become alarmingly dangerous to society.

From a moral and ethical standpoint, it also means that we are deferring actions to future generations, who are in essence being taxed by having to deal with future climate impacts we are imposing on them.