United States

   

Environmental Policies

#41
Key Findings
Despite a history of ambitious environmental protections, the United States sits at the SGI 2019’s lowest position (rank 41) with regard to environmental policies. Its score in this area has declined by 1.2 points relative to 2014.

The Trump administration has been a rapidly escalating disaster for environmental policy. The Republican president has embraced climate-change denial and withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Hard-line opponents of environmental regulation have been appointed to top environmental positions, and many regulations have been reversed without analysis. The Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific and expert staff has been decimated, and many regulations that remain are unlikely to be enforced.

A number of individual states have sought to continue efforts to reduce carbon emissions. However, under Trump, there is unlikely to be leadership or even cooperation from the United States federal government in international climate-change efforts.

Environment

#40

How effectively does environmental policy protect and preserve the sustainability of natural resources and quality of the environment?

10
 9

Environmental policy effectively protects, preserves and enhances the sustainability of natural resources and quality of the environment.
 8
 7
 6


Environmental policy largely protects and preserves the sustainability of natural resources and quality of the environment.
 5
 4
 3


Environmental policy insufficiently protects and preserves the sustainability of natural resources and quality of the environment.
 2
 1

Environmental policy has largely failed to protect and preserve the sustainability of natural resources and quality of the environment.
Environmental Policy
4
The United States has had ambitious environmental programs since the early 1970s. By the 1990s, major enactments covered the entire range of significant environmental concerns, including water resources, wetlands, endangered species and protection of forests. In some areas, such as hazardous-waste management and new sources of air pollution, environmental controls have imposed excessive costs. The issue of climate change, however, requires the implementation of costly controls for the sake of benefits that will occur years or even decades in the future and that will affect the rest of the world as much as the United States itself.

In his 2008 and 2012 election campaigns, President Obama promised to make effective action on climate change a major priority. In 2009-2010, he pushed for a major cap-and-trade bill, but the measure failed in the Senate. Nevertheless, a number of constructive developments occurred. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed several major measures, including increased fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks, and carbon standards for new coal plants.

The Trump administration has been a rapidly escalating disaster for environmental policy. Trump has embraced an extreme version of climate-change denial and withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement. Although some of the more liberal states will continue to seek reductions in carbon emissions, no national action can be expected during Trump’s presidency. Indeed, Trump has promised to rejuvenate the coal-mining industry, an economic absurdity. He appears to want to reverse any action that was taken by the Obama administration – for no other reason than that.

Meanwhile, Trump has appointed hardliner opponents of environmental regulation from industry to top environmental positions. His EPA has ordered the cancellation of numerous Obama-era environmental regulations – actions that have generally been undertaken without benefit of serious analysis and may, in many cases, eventually be struck down by the courts. It has decimated the EPA’s scientific and expert staff. In addition, the EPA under Trump is unlikely to enforce many regulations that remain on the books. Aggressive oversight by the new Democratic House of Representatives in 2019-2020 may curtail what has been a virtual abandonment of environmental regulation at the federal level.

Global Environmental Protection

#41

To what extent does the government actively contribute to the design and advancement of global environmental protection regimes?

10
 9

The government actively contributes to international efforts to design and advance global environmental protection regimes. In most cases, it demonstrates commitment to existing regimes, fosters their advancement and initiates appropriate reforms.
 8
 7
 6


The government contributes to international efforts to strengthen global environmental protection regimes. It demonstrates commitment to existing regimes and occasionally fosters their advancement or initiates appropriate reforms.
 5
 4
 3


The government demonstrates commitment to existing regimes, but neither fosters their advancement nor initiates appropriate reforms.
 2
 1

The government does not contribute to international efforts to strengthen global environmental protection regimes.
Global Environmental Policy
2
The Trump administration represents a sharp reversal of the U.S. role on international environmental issues. From the late 1960s to the early 1990s, the United States exercised leadership on a wide range of international environmental issues. However, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases (GHGs) was a turning point, as the Clinton administration signed the protocol, committing the United States to a schedule of emission reductions, but later abandoned an evidently doomed effort to win Senate ratification. In 2001, the Bush administration formally withdrew the United States’ endorsement of the protocol.

The Obama administration sharply reversed Bush’s policy direction on environmental issues, especially with regard to climate change. But limited support from Congress and the public constrained U.S. positions in international negotiations. Nevertheless, the U.S. rejoined the United Nations process on climate change. In 2014, it committed to reducing total U.S. carbon emissions by 26% to 28% in comparison with 2005 levels, and it played a leading role in the December 2015 U.N. Conference on Climate Change (COP21), although lacking an effective national carbon reduction strategy.

In his presidential campaign, Donald Trump denied the reality of human-driven climate change and vowed to abandon costly policies designed to control greenhouse gases. As president, Trump has withdrawn the United States from the international climate-change regime and canceled U.S. contributions to support conversion to clean energy by low-income countries. Importantly, some states (especially California) have indicated their intention to continue progress in reducing carbon emissions. But California does not play a significant role in supporting the international regimes for environmental control. Under President Trump there will no leadership and little, if any, cooperation from the U.S. federal government in international climate-change efforts.
Back to Top