Donald Trump

27.08.20 Donald Trump's climate policy: “A golden age of energy dominance” Dariush Jones • 7 min.

Scroll to Read

The United States – the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and carbon emitter after China – will have a profound impact on the energy future. On November 3, 2020, America elects its next president. Debate.Energy looks at the two main candidates’ energy and climate policies. After examining the proposals of Democratic challenger Joe Biden, we turn now to the Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump.

Donald J. Trump (1946), former real-estate developer and reality-TV host and currently the 45th President of the United States, has not published the energy and climate strategy he would pursue if reelected. This may be because his intentions are obvious: he and his administration would simply continue along the course he set in late June 2017, namely: “to usher in a golden age of American energy dominance.”

From importer to exporter

Energy dominance, for the Trump administration, has two facets. First, it means “self-reliant … [and] free from the geopolitical turmoil of other nations who seek to use energy as an economic weapon.” Second, it means that “America will export to markets around the world, increasing [its] global leadership and influence.” The first facet is unremarkable: seeking to minimize energy imports and thus exposure to foreign influence is a policy objective many countries share. The second, in the case of the United States, isn’t only remarkable; not many years ago it would’ve been unimaginable.

Throughout the 2000s oil prices rose steadily, peaking in 2008 at nearly $100 a barrel. Prices at this level made two relatively expensive extraction methods – horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” – profitable. This development dramatically increased recoverable reserves of oil and gas, particularly in China, Argentina, and the United States. More than any other country, America has assiduously exploited these new reserves, enabling it to become not only the world’s largest producer of natural gas and petroleum but also – despite its own voracious energy appetite – a net exporter of both. Ironically, many of the fracking-driven production gains occurred during the Obama administration. Nevertheless, the entrenchment of America’s status as a fossil energy superpower – along with apathy toward climate protection – is the cornerstone of President Trump’s energy policy.

License to drill

As part of his fossil-first strategy, Trump rescinded Obama’s moratorium on new leases for oil and gas drilling on federal lands. Through mid-2019, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) had opened federal lands totaling at least 68,000 square kilometers – an area roughly the size of Lithuania – to extraction, with companies buying leases to develop about 9,300 square kilometers. Similarly, in mid-August 2020 the DOI moved forward with its plan to auction drilling leases for about 6,000 square kilometers, or 7.5 percent, of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Roughly the size of the Czech Republic, the ANWR is America’s largest protected and pristine wilderness, notable for its polar bears and caribou. It also likely harbors abundant fossil-fuel resources.

A second Trump administration would doubtlessly continue to promote resource extraction in the ANWR and on federal lands generally (and continue to face fervent and litigious opposition from environmental groups). Joe Biden, by contrast, would reinstate the Obama-era moratorium on new development. But even if elected, he may find it difficult to block companies that have already purchased drilling leases under his predecessor.

Undo overview

The drilling moratorium on federal lands wasn’t the only energy or climate policy Trump undid. He has also:

  • withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate agreement (effective November 4, 2020)

  • revoked an exemption enabling California – the world’s fifth-largest economy – to pursue stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government

  • relaxed decarbonization standards for fossil-fueled power stations (albeit, according to the White House, thereby saving American households nearly $80 billion in higher electricity prices)

  • moved forward with the Keystone XL oil pipeline running from Alberta, Canada, to southeast Nebraska, a controversial project the Obama administration had abandoned in November 2015.

Altogether, the Trump administration has undone, or is in the process of undoing, about 100 environmental rules on everything from air and water quality to the protection of endangered species (the New York Times has compiled a list). If reelected, Trump would almost certainly continue to deregulate.

President Trump and his supporters would argue that such rules are onerous and needlessly hinder business activity for the sake of ill-defined – and perhaps illusory –environmental and climate benefits. His opponents would argue that the rules are crucial safeguards for the health of people and the planet. That’s how polarizing U.S. energy and climate politics are. Whether America voters embrace Trump’s “golden era of energy dominance” or Biden’s “clean equitable energy future” will be decided on November 3.


The contents of this website are created with the greatest possible care. However, Uniper SE accepts no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness and topicality of the content provided. Contributions identified by name reflect the opinion of the respective author and not always the opinion of Uniper SE.

You might also like

Atomkraft, Atomkraftwerk
Energy • Economy • Innovation The future of nuclear power Thomas Schmidt • 8 min.
Energy • Economy Can electricity be both renewable and reliable? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 5 min.
Energy • Climate Cutting carbon cost-effectively Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 6 min.
Energy • Innovation Will hydrogen’s future arrive? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 7 min.
Energy • Climate • Economy Can our emissions be undone? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 5 min.
Energy • Innovation • Science A British biologist’s uncanny clairvoyance Dariush Jones • 6 min.
Energy • Society • Climate A new era, a new color, a new world view Dariush Jones • 5 min.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Energy • Society • Economy Russia modernizes its fossil power plants Dariush Jones • 7 min.
Energy • Society • Innovation Less fretting about jetting Thomas Schmidt • 4 min.
Energy • Innovation Harnessing more renewable energy, decarbonizing industry Thomas Schmidt • 3 min.
Energy • Event Debate.Energy Conference: Best of Jochen Brenner • 15 min.
Energy • Society “Corona is accelerating developments that we didn’t expect for several years” Hannah Meisters • 4 min.
Energy • Innovation “As green as hydrogen can get” Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 6 min.
Energy • Climate #Anthropause: is corona climate-friendly? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 7 min.
Energy • Climate • Politics • Economy Gas is the ideal enabler of a successful energy transition Andreas Schierenbeck, Vorstandsvorsitzender Uniper SE • 4 min.
Joe Biden
Energy • Society • Climate • Politics Biden's climate plan: jobs, workers, unions. Oh, and clean energy too. Dariush Jones • 6 min.
Energy • Innovation • Economy A different incentive for energy efficiency Thomas Schmidt • 7 min.
Bremst der Coronavirus die Energiewende aus?
Energy • Climate • Society Opportunity or obstacle? What corona means for the energy transition Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 9 min.
Energy • Innovation • Climate Podcast: "Städte spielen eine zentrale Rolle für die Energiewende" Jochen Brenner • 30 min.
Wasserstoff: Energieträger der Zukunft
Energy • Climate • Opinions Hydrogen: Jules Verne’s vision brought to life Andreas Schierenbeck, Vorstandsvorsitzender Uniper SE • 8 min.
Energy • Innovation Nuclear fusion: elation or illusion? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 5 min.
Energy • Economy • Science Fuel cells for passenger cars: hope or hype? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 8 min.
Follow us on Social Media
Follow us
on Social Media