Par for the course: Trump on the environment

The transformation of Donald Trump from no-hoper to undisputed winner in the race for the Republican US presidential nomination has been as swift as it has been extraordinary. Despite the clear opposition of the power brokers of the Republican Party itself – who were even prepared to unite behind “Washington’s most hated man”, Ted Cruz, in a last-ditch effort to stop him – Trump has prevailed.

Although he now has the grudging support of many luminaries of the Grand Old Party (GOP), the prospect of a Trump presidency still seems a little remote. That said, a year ago the odds on his becoming the nominee were 33/1, so let’s not write him off….

Were Trump to enter the White House in 2017, there might well be more pressing concerns than his stance on environmental issues. But for those of us for whom the environment is a pressing concern, it’s a useful prism through which to view “The Donald” – if a little like examining the merits (or otherwise) of Mussolini’s transport policies. Indeed, Trump’s bombast and egotism have spawned several comparisons with Il Duce.

Golf wars

The most striking thing about candidate Trump’s environmental views is his lack of them. His campaign website lists only seven policy positions, along with 20 video snippets about the “issues”, so it’s perhaps unsurprising that he doesn’t find space to mention anything green.

One might take encouragement from Trump’s past declaration that he is an “environmentalist”, but his understanding of this word seems to be characteristically idiosyncratic. The focus of his environmentalism appears to be the landscaping of the golf courses he owns. Even in this limited context, his record is controversial.

• Based on unorthodox advice from his “environmental expert” Ed Russo, the Trump Organisation had all 465 trees removed from the banks of the Potomac at the Trump National course in Virginia and claimed this would help reduce soil erosion – as well as improving the view of the river for patrons.
• His Bedminster, NJ course cut down trees and shrubbery, resulting in it being cited by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection for disturbing wetlands.
• The construction of Trump’s Aberdeenshire golf club was unsuccessfully opposed by environmental groups, concerned at the potential for damage to the dunes on which it was located, a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Trump then campaigned against the development of an offshore wind farm that would be visible from the course – but lost.

Although their tastes may differ, Trump’s take on “the environment” seems a lot like UKIP’s – it’s primarily about making sure that they can enjoy a nice view when they want to.

Totally Mexico?

Trump has risen to prominence by presenting himself as an anti-establishment candidate, opposed to mainstream thinking. That’s despite his campaign being run by consummate GOP insiders. Yet his thinking – or lack of it – is typical for a Republican.

Few of Trump’s policies factor in environmental concerns. Take his divisive – both literally and politically – proposal to make Mexico pay for the construction of a wall along the US border. Whatever its human costs, it fails to register that people aren’t the only ones moving across the border. Populations of peccary, desert pronghorn and jaguar (none of which require passports) might all be affected if their ability to migrate is restricted.

Is Trump in the picture to win the US Presidency? Photo: Matt Johnson (CC BY-NC 2.0), via Flickr.

It barely comes as a surprise that Trump is “not a great believer in man-made climate change”. Amongst the leading candidates for the 2016 nomination, only John Kasich said that he believed human activity was responsible for climate change; in 2012, the story was much the same.

In fact, it’s not completely clear that Trump has grasped the concept at all, frequently appearing to confuse “climate” and “weather”. He’s frequently made reference to the “expense” of climate change – perhaps drawing on his personal experience. He was fined £1,610 by the Environment Agency for failing to make payments due under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme arising from a flight to the UK in 2012: outraged, Trump called the whole thing a “scam”. It’s perhaps doubtful that he would sign the US up to the Paris climate change agreement.

When he made a garbled announcement that he would scrap the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Trump was adopting a policy proposed by Rand Paul in 2012. Meanwhile, both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio favoured major cuts to the EPA’s powers. However, leaving pollution standards to states raises the prospect of a “race to the bottom”, and the potential for difficult issues where pollution from one state affects residents of another.

Those whose principal concern is resource policy may already know that, while the EPA is responsible for the standards that landfill sites must meet, recycling programmes already sit with individual states. So, President Trump would at least be unlikely to have a negative effect on recycling.

Unreliable narrator

Insofar as Trump has environmental policies, then, they’re little different from those of his Republican rivals – if widely divergent from the Democratic frontrunners. Yet, what is critical to his success is that he appears to reach them for rather different reasons.

Trump’s message combines Republican “small government” themes with some very non-Republican stances on revoking free trade agreements and introducing tariffs to repatriate industries that have moved manufacturing overseas. So far as the US has higher environmental standards than, say, China or Mexico this latter policy might bring about some environmental benefits – albeit incidentally.

Where his Republican competitors oppose environmental measures due to their impact on business, Trump makes the story about protecting US jobs and reversing a perceived national decline. Many of those who support him appear willing to overlook aspects of his campaign they dislike because of the resonance of this narrative.

So far, the strength of his message and the force of its delivery have proved irresistible. It has allowed Trump to get away with espousing appalling positions – a ban on Muslims entering the US, for example, or rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants. These are ideas that ought to terrify potential Trump voters. But they don’t.

Johnson’s waxing

Perhaps his closest parallel in UK politics is Boris Johnson. Neither man seems bound by the same rules as “normal” politicians – including being held to account for untrue statements. Where Ed Miliband’s uncomfortable encounter with a bacon sandwich, or Zac Goldsmith’s apparent unfamiliarity with how to hold a pint of beer, opened them up to ridicule, Boris was able to ride out an extended stay on a zip wire with no ill effect. If any other UK politician had Johnson’s record, it’s hard to imagine them surviving, still less thriving.

With his supporters, then, Trump seems to occupy a similarly privileged position. But for the wider GOP, Trump is a problematic candidate. A maverick running for president will make it harder for Republicans in Congressional elections to sing from his hymnsheet, and to mobilise the three disparate groups they have come to rely on:

• The TEA party and small-state Ron Paul libertarians, who Trump plays well with
• The conservative Christian right, for whom Trump is a bit socially liberal.
• Wall Street businesses, who may not be keen to donate to the GOP when the prospective president is emphasising his independence from “special interests”.

Ironically, then, one of the most profound effects of a Trump presidential campaign could be to break apart the Republican party’s backing, loosening its grip on Congress, which has latterly been one of the greatest inhibitors of progress on environmental issues – and practically anything else. Win or lose, the legacy of a Trump presidential campaign might just be to open up an opportunity for America to change its environmental stance in a way that hasn’t been possible for a generation.