Donald Trump’s Surprising Role as an Environmental Advocate

[Social Media]

 

Reevaluating environmental policies is a hallmark of changing administrations, especially when Republicans replace Democrats in the White House. Ronald Reagan rolled back Jimmy Carter’s air-pollution regulations, George W. Bush unraveled Bill Clinton’s water standards, and Donald Trump dismantled many of Barack Obama’s restrictions on coal. However, should Donald Trump return to the presidency, his approach to environmental matters may require an unexpected shift: mitigating the ecological harm caused by President Joe Biden’s climate-change agenda.  

 

The Biden administration’s environmental policies have marked a departure from the Democratic Party’s historical balancing act between conservation and industrial development. Fueled by a “climate first” strategy, the administration secured billions of dollars in subsidies for green energy through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Yet, the execution of these initiatives has raised concerns about their environmental impact.

 

Critics argue that lax oversight has allowed projects to harm fragile ecosystems and endangered species, leaving taxpayers to foot a bill projected to exceed $1 trillion by 2032.  

 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal actions significantly affecting the environment require thorough impact assessments. Despite this legal mandate, many renewable-energy projects funded by the Biden administration have bypassed meaningful environmental scrutiny.

 

This oversight has led to significant ecological consequences. For example, ESI Energy, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, admitted that its wind turbines killed at least 136 bald and golden eagles in 2022 alone. Offshore wind projects have also raised alarms; last summer, a wind-turbine blade off Nantucket disintegrated, scattering fiberglass, styrofoam, and debris into the ocean, closing beaches and threatening marine life.  

 

Solar energy initiatives have not been free from controversy either. A 2,300-acre solar farm development in California involved the felling of protected Joshua trees, sparking outrage among local residents. The Los Angeles Times reported that these actions epitomized a growing backlash against producing “green energy at the cost of irreplaceable natural treasures.”  

 

Donald Trump has pledged to recover unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, a challenging task given bipartisan support for some of the subsidies. In August, 18 Congressional Republicans voiced their approval for many tax credits tied to renewable energy, while industry lobbyists worked fervently to shield their financial interests.  

 

If repealing the subsidies proves unattainable, a second Trump administration could focus on enforcing stricter environmental regulations for renewable energy projects. Requiring comprehensive impact studies for federally funded initiatives would level the playing field by holding green-energy companies to the same standards as their fossil-fuel counterparts. Trump could also rescind the Biden administration’s accelerated permit approvals for solar installations and halt blanket permits for wind projects until their ecological effects are better understood.  

 

The stakes are high, not only for fragile ecosystems but also for emblematic species like bald eagles. As critics of Biden’s climate agenda argue, achieving renewable energy goals should not come at the expense of irreplaceable natural resources and wildlife. For Trump, addressing these issues might mark a new chapter in his environmental legacy—one defined not by deregulation but by conservation.

 

Based on a report by WSJ 2024-12-09

 

 

 

[zepplin]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Reevaluating environmental policies is a hallmark of changing administrations, especially when Republicans replace Democrats in the White House. Ronald Reagan rolled back Jimmy Carter’s air-pollution regulations, George W. Bush unraveled Bill Clinton’s water standards, and Donald Trump dismantled many of Barack Obama’s restrictions on coal. However, should Donald Trump return to the presidency, his approach to environmental matters may require an unexpected shift: mitigating the ecological harm caused by President Joe Biden’s climate-change agenda.  

 

The Biden administration’s environmental policies have marked a departure from the Democratic Party’s historical balancing act between conservation and industrial development. Fueled by a “climate first” strategy, the administration secured billions of dollars in subsidies for green energy through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Yet, the execution of these initiatives has raised concerns about their environmental impact.

 

Critics argue that lax oversight has allowed projects to harm fragile ecosystems and endangered species, leaving taxpayers to foot a bill projected to exceed $1 trillion by 2032.  

 

 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal actions significantly affecting the environment require thorough impact assessments. Despite this legal mandate, many renewable-energy projects funded by the Biden administration have bypassed meaningful environmental scrutiny.

 

This oversight has led to significant ecological consequences. For example, ESI Energy, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, admitted that its wind turbines killed at least 136 bald and golden eagles in 2022 alone. Offshore wind projects have also raised alarms; last summer, a wind-turbine blade off Nantucket disintegrated, scattering fiberglass, styrofoam, and debris into the ocean, closing beaches and threatening marine life.  

 

Solar energy initiatives have not been free from controversy either. A 2,300-acre solar farm development in California involved the felling of protected Joshua trees, sparking outrage among local residents. The Los Angeles Times reported that these actions epitomized a growing backlash against producing “green energy at the cost of irreplaceable natural treasures.”  

 

Donald Trump has pledged to recover unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act, a challenging task given bipartisan support for some of the subsidies. In August, 18 Congressional Republicans voiced their approval for many tax credits tied to renewable energy, while industry lobbyists worked fervently to shield their financial interests.  

 

If repealing the subsidies proves unattainable, a second Trump administration could focus on enforcing stricter environmental regulations for renewable energy projects. Requiring comprehensive impact studies for federally funded initiatives would level the playing field by holding green-energy companies to the same standards as their fossil-fuel counterparts. Trump could also rescind the Biden administration’s accelerated permit approvals for solar installations and halt blanket permits for wind projects until their ecological effects are better understood.  

 

The stakes are high, not only for fragile ecosystems but also for emblematic species like bald eagles. As critics of Biden’s climate agenda argue, achieving renewable energy goals should not come at the expense of irreplaceable natural resources and wildlife. For Trump, addressing these issues might mark a new chapter in his environmental legacy—one defined not by deregulation but by conservation.

 

Based on a report by WSJ 2024-12-09

 

 

 

Hopefully with RFK , an environmental lawyer, who has won cases on his side, it will not be drill baby drill and a more finesse approach this time around, fingers crossed 

[LosLobo]

The title "Donald Trump’s Surprising Role as an Environmental Advocate" is misleading.

The text shows no evidence of Trump supporting environmental protection, only speculating on a potential reversal of Biden's policies to oppose his green energy agenda.

[Woke to Sounds]

What do you expect from woke libturds except a hypocritical greenwashing agenda?

 

Remember: Electric cars are gonna save the world from climate catastrophe!