The new EO is apparently designed to stop any legal framework impeding energy production, and to encourage America to become “energy independent”. The EPA will “pursue the twin goal” of protecting the environment and the economy.
Trump has also long signaled that he wishes to pull out of the groundbreaking Paris agreement, and the official told journalists last night that the climate pact was still “under discussion.”
Recent studies, however, have shown how the Paris agreement will not only protect the environment and mitigate dangerous climate change through the proliferation of clean energy, but it will also boost the world economy by $19 trillion in the next few decades by adding new jobs.
Even if the Trump administration sticks with the Paris climate pact, retracting the CPP will drastically reduce America’s ability to abide by the agreement. This will ultimately endanger the US environment and its economy.
There is some good news amidst all this bluster and chaos, though. Firstly, the CPP doesn’t have any legal backing at present. Due to legal action by 28 states and plenty more fossil fuel magnates and lobbying groups, the CPP was never ratified and got stuck in the courts.
So this EO is essentially trying to stop something that doesn’t technically exist from ever having a chance to exist, which doesn’t really mean much at all.
Additionally, as revealed by a recent analysis, the backing of renewable energy by both market forces and dozens of American states has meant that emissions have been drastically cut across the country already.
In fact, the US is already 75 percent of the way to achieving the goals of the CPP, a staggering 14 years ahead of schedule. At the current pace of change, it’s set to greatly exceed them by the time 2030 rolls around.
Lastly, even if the CPP is rescinded, the EPA are impelled by the Supreme Court to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. So it looks like Pruitt will have to craft another emissions regulatory measure anyway, lest they wish to break the law.
Overall, though, for those who wish to protect both the environment and the economy, this EO is certainly bad news – but remember that much of it is political sabre-rattling designed to appease a select few wealthy companies and a swath of the voting public.