Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change

Background

Framework for Climate Resilience

Before its revocation, the 2013 executive order served as a comprehensive framework for enhancing climate resilience across various sectors in the United States. It mandated the modernization of federal programs to support climate-resilient investments and infrastructure developments. Federal agencies were tasked with identifying and eliminating barriers that hindered climate resilience and were urged to incorporate climate preparedness into their planning and operations. By encouraging risk-informed decision-making, the order aimed to promote adaptive learning and improve overall climate preparedness at the national and local levels.

Operational Adjustments in Federal Agencies

Agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency adjusted their operational priorities to align with this directive. The order required these agencies to assess the impacts of climate change on their missions and operations and integrate this assessment into their adaptation plans. The goal was to safeguard national security, natural resources, and public health from climate-related risks. Agencies developed long-term strategies to manage these risks, including updates to infrastructure investment practices and cooperation with state and local governments to enhance community resilience against the adverse effects of climate change.

Data Sharing and Scientific Collaboration

The order also established a framework for collaboration among federal, state, local, and tribal governments to share climate data and scientific research. This collaborative approach aimed at disseminating comprehensive and accessible climate information to support local communities in their adaptation efforts. Tools and data developed under the order were made available through government platforms like 'Data.gov,' enhancing the capacity of various stakeholders to make informed decisions. This initiative supported a science-based approach to climate resilience and facilitated the integration of climate science into decision-making processes across sectors.

Reason for Revocation

Shift in Federal Climate Policy

The revocation of this order by President Donald Trump in March 2017 was part of a broader shift in federal climate policy. This action aligned with the new administration's emphasis on deregulation and reducing perceived burdens on industries, especially those in the fossil fuel sector. The Trump administration prioritized economic growth and energy independence, often at the expense of environmental considerations. This shift marked a departure from the previous administration's focus on climate change as a pressing issue requiring coordinated federal action.

Ideological Underpinnings

The ideological underpinnings of this policy change were rooted in a skepticism towards the severity of climate change and its impact on the economy. By revoking the order, the Trump administration aimed to dismantle what it viewed as regulatory overreach. The revocation formed part of a larger strategy to promote fossil fuel production and reduce restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. This approach was consistent with the administration's broader deregulatory agenda, which included rolling back environmental protections and minimizing federal oversight to stimulate business activity.

Part of Broader Deregulatory Agenda

The revocation was not an isolated action but rather part of a series of executive orders and policy decisions aimed at dismantling climate-focused regulations. This included measures like the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, indicating a systemic dismantling of climate policies implemented by the previous administration. The underlying rationale was to assert U.S. energy sovereignty and prioritize short-term economic gains, often touted as job creation in traditional energy sectors, over long-term environmental and climate considerations.

Winners

Fossil Fuel Industry

The revocation directly benefited the fossil fuel industry, including oil, gas, and coal companies, by reducing the regulatory hurdles related to carbon emissions and environmental compliance. Major corporations such as ExxonMobil and Chevron likely saw potential for increased production and profitability due to relaxed federal oversight and a more favorable business environment. By rolling back climate resilience initiatives, the focus shifted to boosting traditional energy sectors without the constraints of adaptive planning for climate impacts.

Energy-Intensive Industries

Energy-intensive industries, like manufacturing and transportation, also stood to gain from reduced regulatory constraints. The removal of climate-driven requirements potentially lowered operational costs and compliance burdens, allowing these industries to operate more freely. This deregulation was seen as a means to boost domestic production and enhance global competitiveness by removing perceived environmental constraints that could impede business innovation and efficiency.

States with Economic Ties to Fossil Fuels

States with economies heavily reliant on fossil fuels, such as Texas and West Virginia, were likely to benefit from the revocation. These states, with substantial coal and oil industries, supported policies promoting energy production and viewed the executive order as an impediment to economic growth. The rollback allowed for increased energy development, potentially leading to job creation and economic benefits for communities dependent on these primary industries.

Losers

Vulnerable Communities

The revocation adversely affected vulnerable communities, particularly those in coastal or climate-sensitive regions. These communities faced heightened risks from climate change impacts such as sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and resource scarcity. By dismantling a comprehensive federal approach to climate resilience, these areas were left with fewer resources and support mechanisms to adapt to and mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, reducing their capacity to protect the lives and livelihoods of residents.

Environmental Advocacy Groups

Environmental advocacy groups, which had championed the order as a significant step toward sustained climate action, viewed its revocation as a setback. Organizations advocating for federal leadership in climate resilience witnessed a reduction in the momentum necessary to address environmental challenges comprehensively. By removing avenues for scientific collaboration and data sharing, the revocation undermined efforts to integrate climate science into policy, challenging the efforts of these groups to promote data-driven environmental governance.

Long-Term Economic Stability

The focus on short-term economic gains over climate-focused planning potentially jeopardized long-term economic stability. By removing measures to ensure climate resilience, sectors like agriculture and insurance that are sensitive to climate variability faced uncertainties. Without a coherent strategy for managing climate risks, these sectors potentially encountered greater volatility and financial risk, impacting broader economic health. This could ultimately lead to significant economic and social costs as climate impacts worsen over time without adequate preparation and adaptation strategies.