President Donald Trump issued an executive order called, “Unleashing American Energy,” released on February 3rd, urging a major change in U.S. energy policy. The order is promoted as a sweeping reform aimed at encouraging domestic energy production. Its true impact would likely be far more detrimental than beneficial. By favoring the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the environment, public health and long-term economic growth, this order represents everything wrong with our current approach to energy policy.
The order promises to streamline energy production, eliminate environmental regulations and increase the exploitation of oil, gas and coal resources. The order would increase drilling and mining on public lands, including areas in national parks and other protected regions. This directly threatens critical wildlife habitats and biodiversity, potentially leading to the extinction of vulnerable species.
Proponents claim the order will create jobs, lower energy prices and strengthen national security by reducing reliance on foreign oil. However, beneath the surface of these promises lies a slew of disastrous outcomes that will reverberate for decades.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the order is its devastating environmental consequences. The order allows for a drastic rollback of regulations designed to protect natural ecosystems from the harmful effects of energy extraction.
For instance, federal rules limiting the amount of methane that can be released during natural gas production would be relaxed, opening the door for even more potent greenhouse gas emissions to be released into the atmosphere. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and additional methane would only accelerate the pace of climate change. By prioritizing fossil fuel extraction over the health of our planet, the order sets the stage for further climate destabilization, something we cannot afford at this critical juncture in human history.
The order also weakens the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a foundational law that requires a full environmental review of major projects. Now, NEPA is effectively allowing new projects such as pipelines and drilling operations to move forward without any meaningful oversight.
As environmental groups have pointed out, the order represents a “wishlist for the fossil fuel industry.” According to a report from the Environmental Defense Fund, the order would increase contamination in vulnerable regions, turning vast swaths of pristine wilderness into industrial areas. For example, Trump is targeting protected areas like the Western Arctic Special Areas Rule that would open 13 million acres of intact wilderness lost to oil and gas drilling.
The timing of this order’s introduction could not be worse. As the rest of the world takes steps to curb carbon emissions and invest in clean energy, the U.S. government is pushing forward with a policy that would take us backward. In Trump’s executive order, there is a directive to completely phase out and diminish the societal acceptance of electric vehicles, aiming to roll back incentives and support for these eco-friendly modes of transportation. Meanwhile, Trump is closely aligned with Elon Musk, co-founder and CEO of the electric vehicle company, Tesla.
According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, “to eliminate the electric vehicle mandate and promote true consumer choice, which is essential for economic growth and innovation, by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access; ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles; by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.”
Scientists have repeatedly warned that continued reliance on fossil fuels is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, which the U.S. recently pulled out of.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that we must drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption by 2030 if we are to avoid catastrophic climate impacts such as sea level rise, extreme weather events and widespread crop failures. Yet, under this order, the U.S. would increase fossil fuel extraction and emissions, driving us further away from these critical goals.
This order not only undermines our commitment to international climate agreements, but it also puts the future of millions of Americans at risk. In states already experiencing the brunt end of climate change such as wildfires in California, flooding in Texas and heat waves in Florida, the consequences of more intensive fossil fuel extraction are already becoming painfully clear.
These catastrophes are just the beginning. By promoting the very industries that are driving these crises, the order will amplify the suffering of those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
However, supporters of the order argue that increasing fossil fuel production will stimulate the economy and create jobs.
“Today marks the beginning of an exciting chapter for the Department of the Interior,” said Secretary Doug Burgum. “We are committed to working collaboratively to unlock America’s full potential in energy dominance and economic development to make life more affordable for every American family while showing the world the power of America’s natural resources and innovation.”
However, this argument ignores the long-term economic reality of transitioning away from fossil fuels. By doubling down on coal, oil and natural gas, the U.S. risks missing out on the massive economic opportunities that the clean energy sector represents.
In fact, the renewable energy sector already employs more Americans than fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, solar and wind energy jobs have grown exponentially over the past decade. President Trump began dismantling former President Joe Biden’s climate change and renewable energy policies on his first day in office, declaring a national energy emergency to speed up fossil fuel development – a policy he has summed up as “drill, baby, drill.”
Furthermore, the promise of lower energy prices is a misleading argument. While increased oil and gas production might initially drive down prices, the long term economic costs, ranging from healthcare expenses related to pollution to the escalating costs of climate-related disasters will far outweigh any temporary savings.
Another overlooked aspect of the order is its potential impact on public health. Fossil fuel extraction, particularly in areas with dense populations, has been linked to a range of serious health problems, including respiratory illnesses, heart disease and cancer. Polluted air and contaminated water are direct results of increased fossil fuel extractions. The order’s reduction in environmental regulations would expose more communities to toxic air and water pollution, worsening health disparities in already vulnerable populations.
Residents in communities near oil and gas operations have long reported higher rates of asthma and other respiratory conditions and studies have shown that air pollution from these sources is responsible for thousands of premature deaths each year. The idea that we should sacrifice public health for the sake of increased fossil fuel production is not just short sighted, it’s morally irresponsible.
Instead of doubling down on destructive fossil fuel extraction, we need bold, forward-thinking policies that address both energy needs and the climate crisis. A Green New Deal would provide the comprehensive solutions necessary to create a sustainable, renewable energy future while creating millions of jobs in the process. It would invest in solar, wind and battery storage technologies, ensure a just transition for workers displaced by the shift to clean energy, and prioritize environmental justice for communities already burdened by pollution. However, since Kamala Harris lost the election, this policy seems impossible.
The Green New Deal would also foster innovation in energy efficiency, helping to lower costs for consumers while dramatically reducing energy waste. Transitioning to renewable energy would lead to lower healthcare costs by reducing pollution-related illnesses. And importantly, it would ensure that the U.S. can lead the world in addressing the climate crisis, rather than falling further behind.
Photo: by Richard Hurd is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
