Last Monday, Feb. 24, Calvin’s Political Dialogue and Action (PDAC) student organization hosted a presentation and panel discussion on President Trump’s environmental policies. Professors Michael Dirksen, Doug Koopman, and Jamie Skillen gave presentations on the future effects of Trump’s environmental policy on the U.S. and opened up a Q&A panel for students with questions.
Background
In 2017, as President Donald Trump took office, his environmental policy was, according to PDAC President Alex Shier, “framed around undoing a lot of what the Obama administration did.” Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, repealed regulations, terminated the Clean Power Plan and restarted the natural gas and oil pipeline projects.
These changes ignited an energy revolution, lowered gas prices, bolstered economic growth, and provided job opportunities across the country. “There definitely were a lot of consequences to Trump’s Environmental policies in his first term,” Shier said.
The U.S. became a net energy exporter and the largest energy-producing nation in the world, resulting in higher emissions in certain oil and gas sectors as well as the automotive industry. Shier stated that, “most of his [Trump’s] orders and actions were executive in nature, and so a lot of them were undone by the incoming Biden administration.”
During the first weeks of his second term,Trump reinstated his environmental policies through various executive orders: the U.S. left the Paris Climate Accord for the second time, a regulation freeze has paused implementation of new regulations, Trump has declared a national energy emergency while continuing to advocate for more drilling of oil and natural gas. Professors Dirksen, Koopman, and Skillen gave presentations on the future of America with regard to the environment and government policies.
Professor Jamie Skillen
Jamie Skillen, professor of environmental studies and director of the Ecosystem Preserve and Native Gardens, presented on how the Trump administration’s approach to environmental policy negatively impacted federal bureaucracy, land management and regulatory processes. Skillen explained that the administration’s efforts were driven by a broader anti-government sentiment, noting, “what we’re seeing with the Trump administration environmental policy… has everything to do with trying to undo, reduce or shrink many areas of federal bureaucracy.”
Overall, Skillen raised concerns that the administration’s proposed environmental policy changes will reduce public input and control over scientific information; the policies could also undermine transparency, limit accountability and weaken environmental protections.
Skillen went on to state that government restrictions on certain language can be expected as he states, “we’re also gonna see limitations on certain types of language, whether it’s ‘climate change’ that gets removed from agency websites, and also, I would say, things like ‘environmental justice’ that will be strung from websites and certain offices will be closed.”
These policies may control which scientific data influences decision-making by limiting access to certain research and removing key terms like “climate change” from official communication. “It’s got to do more with controlling the types of information that shape government decision-making,” said Skillen.
Looking forward, Skillen anticipates streamlining regulations through changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires extensive reviews of the environmental impacts from the actions of the federal government. Skillen states “they require federal agencies to conduct environmental review of any major federal action that has significant impacts on the environment.”
Skillen continues these reviews “lead to a lot of process, a lot of process, a lot of data gatherings, a lot of public input, a lot of response to that input,” but Skillen anticipates that the Trump administration will try to alter or reduce these reviews to lessen public input and to better shape public perception of the government.
Michael Dirksen
Michael Dirksen, adjunct professor of state and local politics, discussed the influence of lobbying on federal policies as well as how federal policies interact with state ones.
Dirksen started off by highlighting how industries and businesses play a significant role in shaping these policies; for instance, gas and oil companies spend heavily to push for deregulation in the oil and gas sectors.
According to Dirksen, “Lobbying is a bipartisan issue. Both Democrats and Republicans accepted money from big oil.”
One key aspect of Trump’s environmental agenda is preemption, where federal regulations override state laws. A notable example is the Clean Air Act, with Trump’s administration actively targeting California’s stricter vehicle emissions standards. “If a state wants to create higher fuel efficiency standards, the federal government can say, ‘you cannot make those standards higher,’” said Dirksen.
Despite these federal efforts, Dirksn emphasizes that state and local governments still have a significant role in advancing environmental policies. Michigan, for instance, recently passed a bill setting a renewable energy portfolio standard of 100% by 2040, demonstrating that “policies targeted at the state or local level should be one way environmentalists turn our attention to … making climate action happen,” Dirksen said.
Doug Koopman
Doug Koopman, professor of politics, started off by explaining Trump’s motivation for what he calls the “America First” approach. Koopman argued that Trump’s campaign has been fueled by “two bad decisions” that were made in the past 60 years. The first was agreeing to be the leader of the free world after World War II.
According to Koopman, this title of being the leader of the free world “gets us into military spending, it gets us into data, it gets us into defending democracy across the globe.” He elaborated that “the United States has been asked to shoulder the responsibility for global issues, from military intervention to environmental regulation, and Trump’s approach seeks to untangle those commitments.”
The second bad deal, Koopman explained, was Bill Clinton’s decision to embrace global free trade. These decisions promised economic growth through globalization but resulted in the loss of jobs and did not deliver the long-term prosperity it promised. These two bad decisions are framed as a rejection of a more protectionist or “America First” approach.
Koopman suggests that Trump’s belief in market-driven innovation, where “the private sector, left to its own devices, will innovate in energy production and environmental efficiency,” contrasts with traditional regulatory frameworks.
In Trump’s policies, “we have an America First and to some extent an America alone vision, and it’s about energy production and it’s about strategic resources and it’s about the environment. We’ll take care of it ourselves, if we unleash market forces and reduce the over-regulation of the federal government,” Koopman said.
Responses
Environmental science major Lucas Phelps expressed his optimism for the future. Phelps stated, “After seeing all the recent news and everything, it’s been hard to have hope … but this [the panel] was very hopeful in the sense that we don’t have to do everything on such a large, giant governmental scale.”
Phelps, an employee of Plaster Creek Stewards, said that “we can do a lot of good through more local policy and a smaller amount of work that can add up to a lot.”
Fellow student Henry TerBeek, attended the panel and stated afterward, “I’m less worried after attending,” as the professors gave hope for the future of America. This, according to Dirksen, was part of the intent of his talk. “I want students to know that just because we have a federal government that’s antagonistic towards environmental policy and climate science doesn’t mean we have to be hopeless,” said Dirksen.
