By Lynn Capuano
I trust everyone reading this column knows that there is a presidential election happening in less than four weeks. What you may not know is why this election matters to the environment. I am referring to how the president can have an impact on the environment in ways maybe less visible than pulling out of the Paris climate accord.
THE COURTS
The president nominates people to fill federal judicial positions at the district court, appellate court and Supreme Court levels. This means that at every level of our federal judicial system where lawsuits regarding enforcement or dismantling of environmental protection regulations are decided, the president’s influence can be considerable. This is especially true if the president nominates people to fill hundreds of judicial vacancies.
The current administration has nominated and has confirmed more than 200 people to lifetime appointments in the federal judiciary. This includes at least 53 appointments to the circuit courts of appeal, often the last stop for lawsuits raising environmental issues. Very few cases make it to the next highest court, the highest court in our system, the Supreme Court. The judges of the circuit courts of appeal typically have the final word.
While the circuit courts of appeal are regional courts whose decisions carry the most weight within their region, they are also highly influential across the country, in every judicial circuit. And the decisions stand forever unless overturned by a subsequent decision, an unusual occurrence. Fortunately, most federal judges take seriously their obligation to adhere to precedence and make decisions impartially, so the president who nominated them doesn’t always get what was hoped for. But that doesn’t mean the position of the president who nominated the person isn’t felt in judicial decisions and won’t have long-term consequences for environmental protection. While presumed liberal or conservative judges may veer in unexpected directions on some decisions, they usually hold true to the expectations of the president who nominated them.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
The executive branch of the government, of which the president is in charge, is the branch that administers and executes the country’s regulatory system. This includes regulations to ensure that medicines are safe to take, products sold on store shelves and on the internet are not life-threatening or likely to cause serious physical harm, and the air we breathe is clean, the water we drink and use for recreation is safe, and our open spaces are protected for their cultural and environmental significance.
Land use regulation is an area where the president can have significant impact. For example, the current administration lifted regulations preventing fossil fuel production on public lands by eliminating bans on oil and gas exploration in various protected wildlife, coastal and national monuments areas. Doing so means those lands are no longer protected from heavy, large machinery driving across vast expanses of otherwise pristine land, removal of vegetation and other natural elements, road building, pollutant disposal and habitat disruption. Additionally, the Trump administration is pushing to weaken the National Environmental Quality Act, which requires any federal agency to examine the environmental impact of a project, including the project’s impact on protection of sensitive lands before proceeding.
As part of his regulatory authority, President Trump has rolled back regulations addressing airborne emissions of mercury and other toxic substances from power plants and the regulation of disposal and storage of coal ash (the residue left from coal combustion), which contains mercury, arsenic, and other toxins that cause water pollution. Federal regulations touch every aspect of our lives and are responsible for Americans having clean air and water to breathe and drink. A president can and has changed that as leader of the executive branch by eliminating regulations or curtailing their enforcement.
This is only a sampling of the many ways our president can impact our environment. Given the extent of potential impact, we should understand where the candidates stand.
THE CHOICE
President Trump’s record on environmental issues tells us his position. He has weakened limits on greenhouse gas emissions by cars, trucks and the oil and gas industry. He has limited wildlife protections, relaxed pollution regulations on coal-fired power plants and pulled out of the Paris Agreement to address climate change. He has called climate change a hoax and claimed windmills cause cancer.
Former Vice President Biden is offering a goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for the United States by 2050. He intends to:
1. reinstate climate change regulations regarding methane emissions,
2. strengthen fuel economy standards,
3. prohibit fossil fuel development on public lands and
4. rejoin the Paris Agreement.
He also has plans to propose new legislation for Congressional consideration and passage to hold polluters responsible for their carbon emissions, to invest in clean energy and low carbon innovation, to encourage adoption of electric vehicles and to advance low-carbon manufacturing.
Although recycling may be locally managed and our water may be provided and cleaned locally, that does not mean that presidential decisions do not impact our local environment.
The president affects whether the air we breathe and the water we drink is clean and whether we do something to address the present and threatening consequences of climate change.
Voting matters, the earth matters and it matters that you vote.
