We're starting to get some preliminary looks at the script for "Trump II - This Time It's Personal," and it's going to be an interesting few years. It looks like the House will remain (narrowly) in Republican hands, which gives President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance two years, at the very least, to bang through as much of their agenda as they can. Hopefully, Congress will remain in GOP hands following the 2026 mid-terms. But it's prudent to hope for the best and plan for the worst, and we sure as heck hope that Trump and his team are focusing on that two-year window.
One of the agenda items we are starting to get a look at is the climate agenda and energy policy, and the usual suspects, of course, are already panicking - even though there's no real need.
The summary is this: Energy will get cheaper again under Donald Trump, and there will be less wasteful spending on "green" energy projects. I'll take it.
Former President Trump’s electoral victory will likely mean a significant shift in U.S. energy and environmental policy.
His return to the White House next year is expected to lead to a rollback of a number of federal environmental protections and an increase in U.S fossil fuel production and use in the long term.
The former president’s positions on energy and climate starkly contrast with his successor’s. He has frequently denied or downplayed the issue of climate change, and in his first term oversaw the rollback of more than 100 environmental rules and the U.S.’s withdrawal from the global Paris climate agreement.
Most of those environmental rules, as one who was around in the '60s and '70s will realize, are well within the law of diminishing returns. Our air and water in the 21st century, regardless of who was president at the time, have been cleaner than at any time before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. At this point excessive regulation's primary effect is to attach a sea-anchor to the economy - and the economy is Trump's primary focus.
The President-elect ran on kick-starting domestic energy production. Right here in the Great Land, we are very nearly the Saudi Arabia of the north, as far as natural gas and oil are concerned, and the Biden administration has done everything it can to halt production; President Trump Resurgent will remove those roadblocks. That will have a positive effect on energy costs, even in states that still insist on taxing the consumers half to death.
See Related: California Punishes Voters After Historic Election, Slaps on Massive New Gas Tax
Then there's this, The Hill quotes Claudio Galimberti, chief economist and global director of market analysis at Rystad Energy (linked above):
“A Trump administration could end up with more oil produced in the United States because they would, for instance, free up land for drilling” on public lands, he said, adding that there could also be more fiscal incentives or lower fees for drilling.
But, he said, even in the long term, “the oil price will still be the major decider.” In the U.S., oil companies are privately owned and make decisions about whether to produce more oil based on how profitable they think it will be — which is largely based on the fluctuating price of oil.
Up to a point, yes; but while oil and gas are global, fungible commodities, they are subject to the laws of supply and demand, like any commodity; and an increase in supply can be encouraged and incentivized by lowering permitting costs and regulatory burdens. Oil prices don't fluctuate in a vacuum. Costs and demand are primary influences.
It won't happen overnight. Bringing new production online is the work of months or years. But just because a certain project will take, say, three years to bring online, is no reason not to do it; it is belaboring the obvious to note that if some of these extraction projects had been started in, say, 2021, they may already be producing.
See Related: Well, That Didn't Take Long: Climate Scolds Panicking Over Trump 47
Last, Trump seems inclined to take the federal thumb off the "green" energy market, the piece continues:
Trump, meanwhile, has railed against certain low-carbon energy sources, especially wind. His campaign website particularly calls for an end to “insane wind subsidies.”
There is no reason that the federal government should be picking winners or losers in any marketplace - energy or otherwise. The Constitution doesn't allow it. The economy suffers from it. Americans pay higher energy prices (not to mention higher taxes) because of it.
Regardless of the cries of climate scolds and green energy advocates, the incoming Trump administration looks to be leaning into some powerful steps to reduce the cost of energy for Americans - so that our modern, technological lifestyle, which is dependent on abundant, inexpensive energy - continues. That's an unalloyed good - and another reason to be pleased with the outcome of the 2024 elections.
