Difference between revisions of "Talk:Donald Trump achievements: Energy and environmental policy"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Clean Power Plan)
(National monuments)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
:The Trump Administration is apparently caving and retreating from selling public lands: [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/402727-administration-takes-selling-national-park-land-to-private-sector] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:57, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
 
:The Trump Administration is apparently caving and retreating from selling public lands: [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/402727-administration-takes-selling-national-park-land-to-private-sector] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:57, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
 
::The U.S. Senate passed a major parks bill, indefinitely extending the Land and Water Conservation Fund and not doing anything for presidents to unilaterally created national monuments, things which are worrisome: [https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429687-senate-votes-to-extend-key-funding-mechanism-for-parks 1],[https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/02/12/senate-just-passed-decades-biggest-public-lands-package-heres-whats-it/ 2] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:03, 13 February 2019 (EST)
 
::The U.S. Senate passed a major parks bill, indefinitely extending the Land and Water Conservation Fund and not doing anything for presidents to unilaterally created national monuments, things which are worrisome: [https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/429687-senate-votes-to-extend-key-funding-mechanism-for-parks 1],[https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/02/12/senate-just-passed-decades-biggest-public-lands-package-heres-whats-it/ 2] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:03, 13 February 2019 (EST)
 +
:::Interior Secretary Bernhardt says that the department is not planning any more national monument changes: [https://www.apnews.com/c9771175e7874c1eb5dc1463eeb4c128] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:29, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
  
 
== Oil drilling approval ==
 
== Oil drilling approval ==

Revision as of 14:29, 22 May 2019

Offshore drilling

The Interior Department opened public review for changing rules on offshore drilling.[1] Interesting to note here, but I probably won't add it as an achievement. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

The Interior Department just announced it is planning on opening 90% of the U.S.-controlled continental shelf for offshore drilling (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8). While some media sources are acting like it already happened, this is still only a proposal. It shouldn't be added until the rule becomes official. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2018 (EST)
I wondered how imminent this "doom and gloom" scenario was--good to know!
They just refuse to accept the fact that by forcing drilling to be done out deep, it becomes exponentially more dangerous, and more likely to cause a spill. Doing it right near shore drastically reduces the risk of this. Anyway, I'm "preaching to the choir" again... --David B (TALK) 16:47, 5 January 2018 (EST)

The Trump Administration is moving to relax offshore drilling safety rules (1,2,3), though they are apparently not as far-reaching as offshore drilling companies wanted (1,2). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (EDT)

The Interior Department is still moving forward with Alaskan offshore drilling despite the partial government shutdown: [2] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2019 (EST)
In the next few weeks, the Trump Administration will reportedly release its plan to promote offshore drilling: [3] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2019 (EST)

National monuments

Despite the claims of liberals, President Trump's move to reduce the size national monuments is not unprecedented: [4] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2017 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is apparently caving and retreating from selling public lands: [5] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
The U.S. Senate passed a major parks bill, indefinitely extending the Land and Water Conservation Fund and not doing anything for presidents to unilaterally created national monuments, things which are worrisome: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2019 (EST)
Interior Secretary Bernhardt says that the department is not planning any more national monument changes: [6] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2019 (EDT)

Oil drilling approval

The Trump Administration approved a company's request for Arctic oil drilling.[7] I don't see how I can add this right now, but it shows things are changing in the executive branch compared to Obama. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

I added the opening up of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, but here are a few more sources on it: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2018 (EST)
The Trump Administration is continuing to push for this even during hte government shutdown: [8] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2019 (EST)

An Obama-appointed judge blocked oil exploration on 300,000 acres in Wyoming because of climate change concerns -- hopefully, this ruling will be overturned: [9] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2019 (EDT)

Macron and the Paris Agreement

It seems Trump and Macron made it quite clear that Trump's main motivation for leaving the Paris agreement was to fulfill his campaign promises. It's a good thing that President Trump takes his promises seriously, but it worries me a bit because he did not mention the numerous other reasons on why leaving the agreement is a good idea. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

However, I just read that Trump wants to give money that would have gone to the UN climate fund to coal mines.[10][11] As always, we will see what happens. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Worrysome signs?

Update: Macron stated that he and Trump discussed the Paris agreement a lot during their meeting, and it seems like they are trying to find a way to keep the U.S. in the agreement. Based on Macron stated, Trump was sympathetic towards Macron's arguments (such as how climate change encourages terrorism).[12][13][14] If Trump forces real concessions to the Paris agreement in order to allow the U.S. back in, I think might be OK (even though I still think the U.S. is better without it). However, hopefully, Trump will not be duped into remaining in the agreement with either no changes or insignificant changes. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2017 (EDT)

Many U.S. conservatives don't think there is much to worry about with the possibility of Trump choosing to rejoin the agreement.[15] It would be absurd for Trump to just re-enter the agreement and break a promise with no concessions from the other nations. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2017 (EDT)

It is being reported that the Trump Administration is not planning on exiting the agreement after all and will just review the agreement's terms without leaving -- the White House denied this, and hopefully, the report is wrong.[16][17][18][19] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

Hopefully, Macron's prediction on Trump rejoining (which he made in front of a joint session of the U.S. Congress) will be shown to be wrong: [20][21] Macron could very well be the MAGA agenda's undoing (and hopefully, I'm wrong). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

AGW skeptic nominated for important AG job

President Trump chose a prominent skeptic of human-caused climate change to be the Agriculture undersecretary for research, education and economics.[22] This is a Senate-confirmed position, so I'm not adding it to the article yet. It's something to follow. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2017 (EDT)

Trump also chose William Wehrum to be the EPA’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, a very important position, and Democrats really hate the choice, meaning it's probably a good one: [23] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2017 (EDT)
Trump also nominated Kathleen Hartnett White, who is a human-caused climate change skeptic, to be the chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.[24] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2017 (EDT)
Michael Stoker, a conservative Trump-supporter, may be appointed to the EPA, according to some media reports: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2018 (EDT)
Another interesting appointment: [25] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
William Happer, a skeptic of human-caused climate change, will be appointed to the National Security Council as the senior director of the office for emerging technologies: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2018 (EDT)
The Senate confirmed what some media sources are calling a "climate skeptic," to a DOJ position that will defend Trump's environmental policies in court: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2018 (EDT)
Trump will reportedly sign an executive order creating a panel headed by a AGW skeptic who already serves on the NSC to question documents that argue in favor of climate change: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 Hopefully, this will happen, and soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2019 (EST)
Interesting -- a former Obama Administration official is helping establish this panel: [26] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2019 (EST)
More apparent progress regarding the proposed climate panel: [27] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2019 (EST)
Criticism of the panel -- and I'll note it still hasn't been created: [28] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2019 (EDT)

Unfortunately, Sam Clovis, the nominee for the USDA position, withdrew his nomination due to the whole Russia controversy.[29] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

Unfortunately, Kathleen Hartnett White is withdrawing her nomination due to strong opposition from the Senate: 1,2,3 I'm very disappointed to see this, since White's nominated position seems very important. Hopefully, her replacement will also be conservative, and hopefully, she will get another administration position. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2018 (EST)
Clovis announced he will resign from the USDA shortly: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2018 (EDT)

Since Pruitt has announced his resignation, the EPA's deputy director, Andrew Wheeler, will take over -- he seems relatively conservative, but much more establishment, so we shouldn't expect the same intensity as under Pruitt: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2018 (EDT)

Fortunately, Wheeler says he wants to continue Pruitt's deregulatory agenda: [30] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2018 (EDT)
More on Wheeler: [31] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
Wheeler seems bold in defending his conservative agenda: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2019 (EST)
Bill Wehrum, the EPA's assistant administrator for air, made a similar statement as Wheeler on climate change not being the number one priority, though the way he worded his answer wasn't the best, IMO (not strong/forceful enough): 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Raul Labrador would be a great choice to replace Zinke: [32] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2018 (EST)

Not sure if this is a good or not-so-good appointment, but the official in charge of the EPA's chemical research is connected to Koch Industries and might try to advance more deregulation (which I think would be good): [33] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2019 (EST)

Liberal environmental officials resign

As illustrated in this example, some EPA officials are resigning in disgust of President Trump's environmental policies. Without firing anybody, President Trump is able to get rid of these people from his administration. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2017 (EDT)

The EPA's acting science adviser also announced he would resign (however, he did not say why he was leaving).[34] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2017 (EDT)
Michael Dourson, who is Trump's nominee for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, is already serving in the EPA as an advisor.[35] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2017 (EDT)
This possible EPA action might have the effect of personnel changes: [36] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

Panel disbanded

The Trump Administration disbanded "The Community Resilience Panel for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems", which frequently talked about climate change.[37] It might be a good idea to add this to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2017 (EST)

Other good news

George David Banks, who recently resigned because he wouldn't qualify for a full security clearance,[38] recently told the NYT that the Paris agreement is good and that Trump could still remain in it: 1,2 Good riddance, but hopefully, his ideas left the White House with him. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2018 (EST)

Here's an interesting article about Trump Administration officials who have expressed skepticism in human-caused climate change: [39] Because the article is clearly biased against conservatives and because it discusses officials whose roles have nothing to do with environmental policy, I won't add this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2018 (EST)
This is a ridiculously biased article, but it still shows that the Trump Administration is being influenced by great people on environmental policy: [40] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Sec. Ryan Zinke just resigned, but his likely successor, David Bernhardt, appears to be just as conservative and more effective (Similar to Pruitt/Wheeler): 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2018 (EST)

Bad/questionable appointments

Trump nominated Kelvin K. Droegemeier to be his main science advisor -- he is a solid member of the climate establishment who has been fully endorsed by other members of the establishment, and could easily be an Obama/Clinton appointee, so this would be a failure for Trump if he's confirmed: [41] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2018 (EDT)

Reducing regulations

This may be more appropriate in the deregulation article, but the Trump Administration is planning on a large moves eliminate numerous environmental regulations.[42] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2017 (EDT)

As the Trump Administration is repealing Obama-era regulations, many of the scientific studies used to support the "need" for such regulations are being shown to be dubious.[43] This is yet another way in which the truth is coming out about the Obama Administration and its ethics/policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2017 (EST)
This is not really the same thing, but a large oil refining companies was given a waiver to be excempt from soe environmental regulations: [44] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2018 (EDT)
However, the Trump Adminsitration is not as bold on ending environmental regulations as the Left often makes it sound: [45] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2018 (EDT)
The Trump Administration might propose freezing fuel efficiency standards at 2020 levels: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
More on the fuel efficiency standards: [46] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2018 (EDT)
Pruitt is moving to repeal an Obama-era chemical rule: 1,2,3 I'm noting this here, and I think it's good (though the Left is again throwing a big fit), but I don't see how it's significant enough to add in the article. Hopefully, there will be more articles that discuss the EPA's work in a "big picture" sense. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2018 (EDT)
The EPA's board of external science advisors will formally examine several deregulatory actions (and other good moves) by the EPA: [47] Hopefully, it will side with the administration. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2018 (EDT)
Just a "parking spot" for this article which included a link to a statement made by 60 businesses and interest groups supporting Trump's executive order yesterday on U.S. ocean policy: [48] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2018 (EDT)
A somewhat interesting article on the EPA's deregulatory moves, though it's not appropriate to add to the article (since the controversy over Pruitt's ethical behavior is the main focus): [49] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2018 (EDT)
The EPA is looking at changes to the nation's smog standard: [50] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2018 (EDT)
Some more info on the EPA's efforts to repeal the Obama Administration's water (WOTUS) regulations: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2018 (EDT)
The Senate rejected a proposal to block the WOTUS rule in late June, though since the Trump Administration is working to repeal or radically change it, this rejection probably isn't something we need to add to the article.[51] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

The EPA is easing its standards for coal ash disposal: [52] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration might revoke an EPA waiver allowing California to set its own emissions limits: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article on lion-hunting permits: [53] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2018 (EDT)
The EPA rescinded a memo that Pruitt signed on his last day, preventing the enforcement of regulations dealing with selling trucks with old engines: [54] This came after a court blocked the memo's enforcement. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2018 (EDT)
The EPA is reportedly going to roll back Obama's restrictions on coal power plants: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2018 (EDT)
The EPA stated it is planning on changing a 2011 Obama-era rule on air pollution: 1,2,3 This doesn't appear to be official, so I won't add it yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
Another potential deregulatory action coming soon: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
And now, a related but different action expected to be announced shortly: [55] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2018 (EDT)
A proposed rule on drilling and mining in national forests: [56] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2018 (EDT)
Progress on the EPA's methane rule rollback: [57] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2018 (EDT)
An extra (and biased, which is why I'm not adding it) article on a recent mercury regulation change: [58] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2019 (EST)
This article is clearly biased against the Trump Administration's policies, but it's still somewhat interesting to read nonetheless: [59] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2019 (EST)
The EPA probably won't negotiate with California anymore over vehicle emissions limits: [60] Meanwhile, interesting article on the EPA's actions toward part of the agency: [61] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

I'm reluctant to add the EPA's rolling back of a mercury regulation, since it has not been completed (articles say "advanced", which means it's still in the process of being repealed), but it still seems significant: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2018 (EDT)

Democrats in the House will try to aggressively challenge Trump's reducing of regulations: [62] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2019 (EST)
The Trump Administration has given 1,700 waivers to companies wanting to bypass an Obama-era offshore drilling safety regulation -- good, but doesn't seem significant enough to add to the article, considering they're only "safety" regulations. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2019 (EST)

Clean Power Plan

The EPA is reportedly planning on completely repealing the Clean Power Plan: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

The EPA is arguing that the Clean Power Plan violates federal law: [63] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2017 (EDT)
Pruitt signed the order today to start the repeal -- I might add this to the article (1,2,3,4,5). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
It was reported by the MSM that the EPA would change how it calculates air pollution to make it easier to repeal the Clean Power Plan, but the EPA disputes that report: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2019 (EDT)

Secret science

Pruitt has stated that he will end the EPA's practice of using "secret science" to justify new regulations: 1,2,3,4 This is great, but I'm not adding this yet because he's still talking about it in the future tense. Hopefully, he'll do it soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

Another interesting source about this: [64] Apparently, we should prepare for a formal announcement about this soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2018 (EDT)
Pruitt formally announced this today, but this policy will be in the form of a regulation, so it will take a while before actually going into effect: 1,2 I may still add it in the next couple days, but we'll see. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
The Pentagon opposes the EPA's proposal: [65] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
The EPA plans on finalizing the secret science rule next year: [66] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2018 (EST)

Potential failure: backtracking on Obama-era smog regulation

The EPA announced it would not delay the implementation of an Obama-era smog rule, one of the most costly regulations in existence.[67][68] This is not good, but because the alternative was delaying it (something I personally would not add, at least for a single regulation), it does not seem significant enough to add to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2017 (EDT)

FERC

The FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said he will focus on and help coal and nuclear plants during his tenure.[69] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2017 (EDT)

According to this report, the FERC is becoming more partisan, which might possibly be a good thing (right now, at least) from a conservative perspective: [70] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

Coal boom

While probably not appropriate to add, this article is interesting and describes a coal town in Kentucky that is starting to rebound. A very specific example and still early, but interesting. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2017 (EDT)

This is another specific article, but coal people clearly are confident right now: [71] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
The recent very cold weather is helping the Trump Administration argue for continued coal (and nuclear) energy: [72] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2019 (EST)

Coal decline?

This Washington Examiner article states that coal production is declining overall: [73] This might be something to watch. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2018 (EST)

Here's another article saying something similar: [74] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2018 (EST)
And another article: [75] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2018 (EST)
Another article on this: [76] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
Coal consumption has declined to a 4-decade low: [77] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2018 (EST)
Article on declining coal operations out west: [78] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2019 (EST)
Another article on this general topic: [79] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2019 (EST)
Another article: [80] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2019 (EST)

This article states that Appalachia could still experience an energy boom soon, though, apparently, on ethane and not coal: [81] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Oil boom

The U.S. is increasing the number of barrels of oil it produces daily, and it is becoming more important in the global market with oil: [82] This seems like good news. Might be good to wait, though, for this to ripen before adding. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2018 (EST)

The U.S. will apparently soon overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production: [83] Once this actually happens, this should be added. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2018 (EST)
Interesting source related to the oil boom (though an opinion piece): [84] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2018 (EST)
Here are more good articles, this time about the International Energy Agency's prediction that the U.S. will dominate oil markets in the next five years: [85][86] Since this report has to do with future predictions, rather than events that have already happened (though these predictions probably will come true), I will not add this to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2018 (EST)
The Trump Administration is apparently planning on taking Venezuela's place as the main (or, at least, a large) oil exporter to countries in the Caribbean and Latin America: [87] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2018 (EST)
Another article about this: [88] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2018 (EDT)
More: [89] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2018 (EDT)
Other good articles on another estimate U.S. oil output surpassing every other country soon: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2018 (EDT)
Now, Texas alone is expected to surpass Iraq and Iran in oil production: [90] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
U.S. crude oil inventories rose sharply: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2018 (EDT)
More on rising U.S. oil inventories: [91] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2018 (EDT)
Frackers want to build new terminals so they can increase oil exports even more: [92] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2018 (EDT)

An interesting article on this topic: [93] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

This article seems to be on U.S. oil prices, though it may be slightly useful: [94] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
An article on oil in West Texas: [95] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article on OPEC: [96] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
This article is somewhat relevant to this issue: [97] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2018 (EDT)
Apparently, oil traders are seeing losses because of the oil boom in the U.S. (though that doesn't seem like a bad thing for the U.S.): [98] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
More on OPEC and its reaction to increased U.S. oil output: [99] Interesting article, but I don't see how it's appropriate to cite in the page. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Though slightly off topic, here are some more sources on OPEC's recent decision on oil prices: 1,2,3,4,5 Interestingly, oil prices rose after the announcement was made, though the long-term impact is yet to be seen (though most likely resulting in lower oil prices). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2018 (EDT)

Oil prices fell today: 1,2 They probably will fall long-term because of the decision, but it's something to continue watching. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2018 (EDT)
More news about prices falling: [100] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2018 (EDT)
More on Saudi Arabia: [101] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2018 (EDT)
Oil prices fell right after Trump tweeted saying prices should fall[102] -- nice! This might possibly be something to add, depending on how significant this turns out to be. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2018 (EDT)
Talk of the U.S. releasing some of its Strategic Petroleum Reserves to lower oil prices is already lowering oil prices: [103] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
Somewhat interesting WSJ article on shale companies and their potential (negative) effect on the oil boom: [104] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2019 (EST)

Saudi Arabia is expected to announce a deal with the U.S. in the next few months to invest in U.S. natural gas projects, a very big deal if it happens: [105] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2019 (EST)

Mexico apparently has cut off light crude oil imports from the U.S., apparently to stop people from stealing the oil: [106] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2019 (EST)

The U.S. is expected to become a net petroleum exporter as well as the largest in the world: [107] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

The EIA is raising its forcast for crude oil growth in 2019 and 2020: [108] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2019 (EDT)

Trump Administration coal plant rejection

It looks like the Trump Administration may not be as pro-coal as some people thought: it rejected a request from a coal company to use a federal order to stop a coal plant from closing.[109][110] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

According to the Energy Department, the main reason for coal plant closures is competition from natural gas: [111] At the same time, hopefully, the Trump Administration will be able to remove the regulations, which are harmful regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
The Heartland Institute criticized the DoE's report and argues that regulations have played a larger role in hurting coal companies than the DoE admits: [112] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Expanding natural gas

Here's an interesting article: [113] According to the Energy Department, natural gas exports are quickly increasing and the department is taking steps to make approvals go faster. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

The Trump Administration sees an opportunity to sell more natural gas to Germany, as the latter closes its coal plants: [114] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2019 (EST)
Some extra articles on natural gas exports to the EU: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

Oil & gas lease sale

The Interior Department it would announce what is supposed to be the largest oil and gas lease sale in U.S. history: 1,2 At the very least, it appears that it will begin the regulatory process to begin lease sales in ANWR: [115] However, the department has canceled lease sales in at least two locations after criticism: 1,2,3 If this lease sale goes through, this will be a good thing, and hopefully, it will actually happen. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration could use military bases to help export coal and natural gas: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2018 (EDT)

Promoting hunting

While this may be trivial (and a bit humorous), Interior Secretary Zinke installed a deer-hunting video game in the Interior Department's cafeteria to promote hunting.[116][117] While trivial and humorous, it does show the department's support for hunting. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

Secretary Zinke also declared October to be National Hunting and Fishing Month.[118] This is more substantial than the video game, but it might be better to leave this out as well (but if anyone thinks it's significant enough to include, please convince me). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

Oil pipeline approvals

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved two major natural gas pipelines.[119] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2017 (EDT)

A court ordered the Trump Administration to conduct a review of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, and the Army Corps of Engineers just finished that review, not finding anything of concern: [120] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2018 (EDT)
Trump might sign some executive orders regarding oil pipeline approval -- I don't know whether the Keystone approval he signed today is this, or just a small part, or whether this article is referring to a completely different order: [121] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2019 (EDT)
More on this: [122] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2019 (EDT)
Trump will reportedly sign a specific order on this topic next week: [123] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2019 (EDT)
It's supposed to be two orders on Wednesday, 4/10: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
Extra sources: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2019 (EDT)
The FERC approved another pipeline connecting Pennsylvania with the northeast -- this is great news, though I'm not sure it's significant enough to add to the article: [124] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

Other approvals or regulatory improvements

A proposed gold and copper mine in Alaska might get closer to becoming reality -- the Obama Administration had stalled the project since 2014, but the Trump Administration is, at least, much more likely to approve it.[125] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2017 (EST)

The BOEM approved a company's request to drill oil in federal waters north of Alaska, which would be a first: [126] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is apparently planning some more executive orders to improve America's energy situation: [127] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2019 (EST)

Paris climate agreement talks

Despite announcing it would leave the agreement, the Trump Administration will send a delegation (led by Obama-holdover Tom Shannon, who said in 2015 that climate change was "one of the world’s greatest challenges") to discuss the future of the Paris climate agreement.[128] Hopefully, the U.S. will still pull out despite attending these talks. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2017 (EDT)

Withdrawing from implementing EITI

The U.S. will be withdrawing as an implementing country of EITI.[129][130][131][132] Maybe this would be more relevant as a foreign policy action, but I won't add this, at least for now, as it does not seem very significant. Also, I have not seen the conservative media report on this. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

EPA climate debates

According to EPA Administrator Pruitt, this might come in January: [133] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2017 (EST)

It seems that John Kelly effectively stopped this from happening: [134][135] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2018 (EST)

Questioning the AGW "consensus"

Apparently, EPA Administrator Pruitt has been more vocal in questioning whether climate change really is human-caused: [136] This is good, and hopefully, it will make up for the Administration's withdrawal of the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2018 (EST)

However, a draft report in the administration states that the climate will warm by 7 degrees: [137] Hopefully, it's not caving to the AGW alarmists. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2018 (EDT)
This article claims that climate change should be blamed for the California wildfires, but it also admits that crowded forests also have a big role in causing them: [138] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2018 (EST)
This op-ed writer seems mildly critical of Trump and the op-ed isn't very detailed, reasons why I'm not adding it to the article, but he makes a good point on Trump's statements regarding the California wildfires: [139] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2019 (EDT)

Trump's overall climate change policy

Although this study was created by an organization that opposes Trump and his policies, it is still interesting to read and shows how much the Trump Administration is different from the Obama Administration with regards to climate change policy: [140] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2018 (EST)

Here's an interesting article discussing how much of the U.S. government is still advancing the climate change agenda despite Trump being president: [141] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2018 (EDT)
The White House criticized a government report on climate change after Trump and Zinke did: [142] This is good, but unless there are other sources -- which do not editorialize on the issue like this one -- I won't add its statement on this. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2018 (EST)
The National Geographic is not a good/fair source with regard to environmental matters and the Trump Administration, but this article is interesting enough to mention here: [143] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2019 (EST)

I recently added how the Trump Administration was able to defund a program monitoring carbon emissions around the world, something useful for the Paris agreement, but Congress is apparently trying to re-fund the program again: [144] Hopefully, this will fail. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

More sources (from a left-wing point of view) on Trump not mentioning climate change in his SOTU address: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2019 (EST)

Removing mentions of climate change

FEMA apparently has become the latest organization to remove mentions of climate change from its strategic plan: [145] According to the same article, the USCIS and HUD also have removed such mentions (and those two agencies have nothing to do with AGW, so good riddance). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

There were some reports that NOAA would change its mission statement to de-emphasize climate change, though the agency has stated that it remains committed to the climate change agenda: [146][147][148] It's not clear to me if a new mission statement will be adopted, but it might be something o watch. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2018 (EDT)

Other international treaty matters

It is possible that Trump will choose to leave an international pollution treaty created during the Obama Administration: [149] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2018 (EST)

The U.S. under the Trump Administration voted against a UN resolution to create a legally binding climate change treaty (though the Senate would-- or should -- ratify it for it to become that): 1,2,3,4,5,6 This is great to add, but I want to see what comes out of this proposal first before doing anything about it. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2018 (EDT)
We should watch what Trump does regarding a 2016 amendment to the Montreal Protocol -- big business (unsurprisingly) supports the environmentalist amendment, though it appears that Trump leans toward opposing it and pulling out: [150] Hopefully, Trump will leave it. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2018 (EDT)
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler stated he was able to avoid climate change issues at a G7 meeting, though I'm slightly concerned about the EPA needing to cooperate with other countries on international matters: [151] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2018 (EDT)
The White House is seeking to slow the implementation of some international regulations (!!!) for cleaner ship fuels: [152] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2018 (EDT)
The Trump Administration will reportedly promote fossil fuels at a UN event in December: [153] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2018 (EST)
The U.S. (and China) did not take part in the UN's climate meeting in Poland (because it existed the Paris agreement): [154] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2018 (EST)
Somewhat interesting article discussing other countries' indirect responses to Trump's opposition to left-wing climate policies: [155] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2018 (EST)
Some new UN fuel rules (2020 International Maritime Organization) appear worrisome, as they appear to undermine Trump's energy policies: [156] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2019 (EST)
The U.S. originally sought to remove any mention of claimate change from the Arctic Council's joint statement, though, as of when the articles were published, it appeared that it had moderated its positions: 1,2 Hopefully, the U.S. will succeed with its original intentions. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
The U.S. was one of a small number of countries not to sign a plastic waste agreement since it had not ratified an underlying treaty -- a good decision on its part: [157] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2019 (EDT)

This doesn't exactly have to do with international treaties, but Congress might pass a bill to counter OPEC's alignment with Russia by allowing the DOJ to sue OPEC members for antitrust violations: [158] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2019 (EST)

This is more of a general foreign policy matter, but the U.S. is continuing to criticize Germany for supporting the Nord Stream pipeline that would make it more dependant upon Russia: [159] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2019 (EDT)
Congress might pass the NOPEC bill, which would remove sovereign immunity from OPEC, an idea Trump endorsed during and before his campaign: [160] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2019 (EDT)

Great statement by Trump criticizing France and the Paris agreement, noting the yellow vest movement: [161] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2019 (EDT)

EPA and UN Agenda 2030: big potential failure

Apparently, the Obama Administration EPA signed an agreement to cooperate with the UNEP on climate change and implementing the UN's Agenda 2030: [162] This remains in effect, and if the Trump Administration doesn't withdraw from it, it must be listed as a failure. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

Methane gas rule

In 2017, the U.S. Senate voted against (by one vote) overturning an Obama Administration methane rule. However, I have read stories about the Interior Department trying to repeal the rule by itself. Assuming this is the same rule, the Trump Administration just proposed a new rule on methane that is more business-friendly: [163][164][165] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2018 (EST)

Excess uranium

Energy Secretary Perry apparently is suspending the Energy Department's practice of selling excess uranium: [166][167] When I saw the headline, I thought it was for national security reasons, but it's actually in response to a complaint by a senator blocking a nominee, who thinks selling uranium hurts uranium mining companies in his state. I think the whole situation is pathetic, but I guess Perry has to do it to get a nominee through. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

Plutonium

The Trump Administration will apparently try to end a program that will convert excess plutonium to energy, something that will cost many billions of dollars, and instead bury the plutonium at a less expensive price: [168] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

More on this -- it appears the administration has won the fight: [169] Personally, this seems like a waste, as the plutonium would be reused rather than thrown away (effectively), and the program was already well underway. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2018 (EDT)

Renewables

The Interior Department is hosting a lease sale to expand offshore wind energy: [170] I'm not a big fan of wind power, but if it helps increase U.S. energy independence and does not hurt other American energy industries, that's a good thing. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2018 (EDT)

Just something interesting to note, renewable energy companies are reportedly donating more to Republicans than Democrats now, which was not the case until 2016.[171][172] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
The Interior Department will hold an auction on December 13 for companies to develop offshore wind power: 1,2 This is definitely an achievement that should be added, but the source now appears to be only discussing what the department plans to do, rather than what it is doing. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2018 (EDT)

Solar panels

This may not be a Trump Administration achievement, at least fully, but the Energy Department's goal to reduce the price of solar power was achieved three years ahead of schedule,[173] and if solar power can be made competitive with traditional energy, I think that would generally be a good thing. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2017 (EDT)

In 2017, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a government agency, invested twice as much into solar power than the previous year: [174] Hopefully, none of this goes against Trump's agenda, and hopefully, none of the Obama-era solar energy corruption is present with the agency's 2017 investments. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2018 (EST)
Another article discussing a continued rise in solar power in 2017 (though it may easily have had little/nothing to do with Trump): [175] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

Ethanol dispute

The White House canceled plans to announce changes in U.S. biofuels policy, the latest development over a battle over which direction to take regarding the issue: 1,2 This issue might be a good one to follow more closely. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2018 (EDT)

The EPA is announcing it will help farmers increase biofuel production: [176] This could be added to the article, though I'm not sure how significant this is. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
The EPA may change its ethanol rules (benefiting ethanol producers) while not going forward with biofuel changes that will help oil companies: [177] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2019 (EST)
The EPA is planning additional actions to help solve the ethanol-oil dispute: [178] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2019 (EST)

Helping coal and nuclear

Trump recently ordered Energy Secretary Rick Perry to develop a plan that will help coal and nuclear energy remain important in the U.S.: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Probably too early to add, though definitely something to watch. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

This Ohio coal plant said it would close, but also said it might change its decision if the Trump Administration takes actions: [179] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Trump called on the Tennessee Valley Authority to look at "all factors" before closing a coal plant in Kentucy: [180] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2019 (EST)
Unfortunately, the TVA still voted to close the plant: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2019 (EST)
Perry says he's not done trying to help coal: [181] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2019 (EDT)

WOTUS

The EPA decided to delay the implementation of the Obama Administration's WOTUS regulation for two years as it creates and enacts a new and better regulation to replace it: 1,2,3,4 However, some left-wing environmental groups have sued again, trying to stop the delay: [182] As always, we'll see what happens. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

California is making its own water regulations now that the Trump Administration is undoing the WOTUS rule: [183] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2019 (EDT)

Energy independence and national security

Here are some interesting articles on this topic: [184][185] It's something we should follow. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump is apparently speaking too soon when he states that the U.S. is already a net energy exporter: [186] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2019 (EST)

Better environment

The EPA announced that air pollution levels had fallen 73% since 1970: 1,2,3,4 This is good news, but all of this, with the exception of possibly one year (most likely less than a year) actually happened under Trump's presidency, so it's probably inappropriate to include this, even though his policies are not going to change these positive trends. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2018 (EDT)

Next week, the Trump Administration is supposed to unveil a strategy to fight lead exposure: [187] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2018 (EST)
Waste reductions, according to a liberal environmentalist organization: [188] Still noting it here, though. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2019 (EST)
The EPA will enact limits on a certain chemical later this year: [189] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2019 (EST)
Environmentalists are not happy with the Trump Administration's GMO rules: [190] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2019 (EST)
Interesting (and thoughtful) take on reduced EPA prosecutions by the official in charge of such matters: [191] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2019 (EST)

This may not be the best section to post this, but the FWS, for whatever reason, ended a program allowing wildlife refugee managers to double as law enforcement officers: [192] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2018 (EDT)

Matters related to environmentalism

Commerce Secretary Ross ordered the National Marine Fisheries Service to prioritize getting water to put out the forest fires in California over allotting water to protect endangered species: [193][194] This is good, but it may not be significant enough to add to the article. If more sources come out, I may add it. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Administration will soon take action to take the grey wolf off the endangered species list: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2019 (EST)
The Trump Administration wants to downlist a beetle that's been labeled at endangered: [195] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

EPA reorganization

Interesting articles on the recent reorganization in the EPA: 1,2 These don't seem significant enough to add to the article, but still interesting to mention here. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2018 (EDT)

Hemp legalization

Industrial hemp has been legalized in the farm bill Trump signed: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 --1990'sguy (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2018 (EST)

FEMA funding for CA

Trump threatened to withhold FEMA funding to California because of the latter's failure at forest management: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2019 (EST)