This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Donald Trump to Speak on Energy After Contradictions and Stumbles Donald Trump’s Energy Plan: More Fossil Fuels and Fewer Rules
(about 11 hours later)
Donald J. Trump will head to the heart of America’s oil and gas boom on Thursday to unveil details of his policies on energy and the environment. BISMARCK, N.D. — Donald J. Trump traveled Thursday to the heart of America’s oil and gas boom, where he called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations while vowing to “cancel” the Paris Agreement, the 2015 accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to curb climate change.
Speaking at an oil industry conference in Bismarck, N.D., Mr. Trump is expected to embrace standard Republican calls for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations, while possibly elaborating on his positions on climate change. Laying out his positions on energy and the environment at an oil industry conference in North Dakota, he vowed to rescind President Obama’s signature climate change rules and revive construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring petroleum from Canada’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
Mr. Trump has backed some energy policies, such as requiring more ethanol production, that are widely criticized by energy experts. He has made contradictory remarks on alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar. And he has made pledges — for example, to restore lost jobs in coal mining — that essentially defy free-market forces. It was the latest in a series of recent policy addresses, including on Israel and foreign policy, designed to position Mr. Trump, the bombastic real estate mogul and reality show star, as credible on substantive issues now that he is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
“Many of his proposals thus far don’t seem to appreciate the complex forces that drive the energy system,” said Richard G. Newell, director of the Duke University Energy Initiative. But experts remain skeptical of Mr. Trump’s command of the complexities of the global energy economy. And he made claims, such as a promise to restore jobs lost in coal mining, that essentially defy free-market forces.
Mr. Trump’s decision to set his speech in North Dakota was politically strategic. He is fewer than 30 delegates shy of clinching the Republican presidential nomination, and North Dakota’s 28 unpledged delegates could get him to the magic number. “Many of his proposals thus far don’t seem to appreciate the complex forces that drive the energy system,” said Richard G. Newell, an energy economist at Duke University who has closely followed Mr. Trump’s remarks.
A central question confronting the next president will be climate change. Mr. Trump has forcefully denied the established science that it is caused by humans, saying in a radio interview last year, “I’m not a believer in man-made global warming.” Mr. Trump’s decision to set his speech in North Dakota was politically strategic. He began the day fewer than 30 delegates shy of clinching the nomination, and on Thursday, he reached the required 1,237-delegate threshold with the help of unpledged delegates in the state who moved to support him.
Mr. Trump has said he would undo President Obama’s climate change policies, particularly a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations to curb planet-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants. Of the E.P.A. itself, he has vowed “to get rid of it in almost every form.” Mr. Trump asked North Dakota’s Republican congressman, Kevin Cramer, to suggest energy policies before the speech.
He has said that as president, he would renegotiate the Paris climate accord, a global agreement committing nearly every nation to lowering greenhouse gas pollution. And, while demand for American coal has declined, he declared while campaigning in West Virginia, “We’re going to get those miners back to work.” A central question confronting the next president will be how to address climate change. Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly denied the established science that climate change is caused by humans, vowed in his speech to undo many of Mr. Obama’s initiatives.
But, as reported by Politico, Mr. Trump’s organization cited global warming and its consequences in a permit it filed to build a wall to protect against erosion at his seaside golf resort in County Clare, Ireland. And in an environmental impact statement from a smaller project in 2003, his organization also cited “sea level rise” and “global warming” as reasons to build a small cobble and rock wall at three sections of a beach. He did not explicitly address the scientific legitimacy of human-caused climate change, but said, “We’re going to deal with real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been hearing about.”
Whether Mr. Trump could fulfill his energy pledges is an open question. The centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s climate change rules is being litigated in federal courts. If, as is widely expected, the case goes to the Supreme Court, the justices, rather than the president, will determine its fate. But if elected president, Mr. Trump could nominate a new Supreme Court justice to help strike down the rule. Mr. Trump said that in his first 100 days in office, he would “rescind” Environmental Protection Agency regulations established under Mr. Obama to curb planet-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Dismantling the E.P.A. would be trickier. The president does not have unilateral authority to eliminate an agency, and even proposals to limit its authority would have to go through Congress. And simply cutting its authority would not end its responsibility to carry out existing environmental laws. “Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones — how stupid is that?” Mr. Trump said.
“Even if Congress did vote to eliminate the E.P.A., they would cause huge problems unless they also went back and redid some of these laws,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who was an E.P.A. official under President George W. Bush. “You would cause quite a train wreck if you were to simply do away with the E.P.A.” However, the next president will not have the legal authority to unilaterally rescind the climate rules, which are now being litigated in federal courts. If, as is widely expected, the case goes to the Supreme Court, the justices, rather than the president, will determine its fate. But if elected, Mr. Trump could nominate a new Supreme Court justice to help strike down the rule.
While Mr. Trump says he would renegotiate the Paris agreement, its fate may be determined before the next president takes office. Once the accord is ratified by 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions, it will enter into legal force, and any country wishing to withdraw would have to wait four years to do so. However, if the deal has not been ratified by January 2017, a new American president could withdraw immediately. For that reason, many countries are racing to ratify the deal this year. Mr. Trump’s threats to unravel the Paris Agreement could carry more weight.
In his speech, he complained, inaccurately: “This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use on our land, in our country. No way.”
In fact, at the heart of the Paris Agreement are voluntary pledges put forward by the governments of over 190 nations, laying out plans to lower emissions. No government has control over the emissions-reduction plans of other governments.
Once the accord is ratified by 55 countries responsible for 55 percent of global emissions, it will enter into legal force, and any country wishing to withdraw would have to wait four years to do so. However, if the deal has not been ratified by January 2017, a new American president could withdraw immediately. For that reason, many countries, fearful that a President Trump would do just that, are racing to ratify the deal this year.
But there would be no legal consequence if the United States, the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas polluter, simply did not follow through with the Obama administration’s pledge to cut emissions up to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
In an even more potent threat, Mr. Trump declared that the United States would “stop all payment of U.S. tax dollars to global warming programs.”
“We’ve got big problems, folks, and we can’t be sending money all over the world,” he said. “We’re going to keep our money here and our jobs here and bring our jobs back.”
But developing nations, including India, have made clear that their ability to cut emissions depends largely on financial help from other countries. And as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pledged that rich countries, including the United States, would commit $100 million annually by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to the ravages of global warming. A clear signal that the United States would back down from its commitments to reduce emissions and provide financial assistance could undermine the political will in other countries, such as India and China, to take action.
Other elements of Mr. Trump’s energy proposals appear less viable. As coal mining jobs have declined, Mr. Trump has vowed to fully restore their numbers.
“We’re going to bring back the coal industry, save the coal industry,” he said. “I love those people.”
It is unclear how Mr. Trump could restore lost jobs in the coal industry. As domestic coal demand has declined, companies have laid off thousands of miners. But economists say that shift is driven by market forces: The natural gas boom led power companies to buy cheaper gas rather than coal.It is unclear how Mr. Trump could restore lost jobs in the coal industry. As domestic coal demand has declined, companies have laid off thousands of miners. But economists say that shift is driven by market forces: The natural gas boom led power companies to buy cheaper gas rather than coal.
“Most analysts would say that coal is hurting because natural gas prices have collapsed,” said Robert McNally, the president of the Rapidan Group, an energy consulting firm, and a senior energy official in the Bush administration. “Donald Trump would have to find a way to raise natural gas prices.” “Most analysts would say that coal is hurting because natural gas prices have collapsed,” said Robert McNally, the president of the Rapidan Group, an energy consulting firm, and a senior energy official in the George W. Bush administration. “Donald Trump would have to find a way to raise natural gas prices.”
On renewable energy, Mr. Trump has been inconsistent. Mr. Trump also repeatedly emphasized “energy independence” — the idea that the United States could isolate itself from global oil markets and cease importing fuels.
In 2005, he wrote on his blog, “I wish that the United States would just get on the ball with alternative energy,” and suggested that funding for the space program “should be redirected into research that would develop other ways of fueling our nation.” “Under my presidency, we will accomplish complete American energy independence,” he said. “We will become totally independent of the need to import energy from the oil cartel or any nation hostile to our interest.”
But in his 2015 book, “Crippled America,” Mr. Trump called the government’s push to develop renewable energy “another big mistake.” But experts say that such remarks display a basic ignorance of the workings of the global oil markets.
Yet while campaigning in Iowa, where wind energy makes up more than 25 percent of electricity, he said he was “O.K. with” subsidies for wind power. “Even if energy independence was achievable, it would not be desirable,” Mr. Newell, the Duke University energy economist, wrote in an email. “Our interests tend to be best served by getting each type of fuel we need from the least expensive source, be it domestic or imported. When domestic U.S. energy is globally competitive, like the recent oil and gas boom, our imports go down. But energy independence itself is one of the least useful energy policy goals — and is at times damaging.”
Mr. Trump also sought to court Iowa voters by supporting corn-based ethanol. Current law requires annual production of 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol. This has benefited Iowa’s farmers but, experts say, harmed the rest of the country, raising food and fuel costs while yielding little environmental gain. A bipartisan coalition of federal lawmakers has pushed to repeal the mandate. But while campaigning in Iowa, Mr. Trump said he was “100 percent” behind the mandate and would even raise it. Mr. Trump’s speech, which he delivered with the help of teleprompters, drew a large, cheering crowd to the conference, packing an arena here with thousands of people.
“That doesn’t make a lot of sense,” said Mr. Newell of Duke University. “It’s already so ambitious that it’s been difficult for industry to meet.” Steve DeWacht, 45, a district manager at Colter Energy, a company in the fracking industry, said he liked what he knew of Mr. Trump’s energy policy.
Over all, experts remain skeptical of Mr. Trump’s command of the complexities of the global energy economy. “I’m hoping he’s going to support the oil industry, open up some new plays — in Pennsylvania, maybe — keep Texas going and help out in North Dakota,” he said. “He’s got to get us off the OPEC train and help us make our own train.”
“I have no idea whether he’ll show the same mastery of international oil markets that he does of women’s issues,” said Tom Kloza, an analyst at the Oil Price Information Service. Bob Morman, 60, who works for Montana-Dakota Utilities on the natural gas side, said he was supporting Mr. Trump, but knew little about his energy plans and had come to learn more.
This month, Mr. Trump met with Robert E. Murray, the chief executive of Murray Energy, a major coal producer, seeking policy advice. He appeared befuddled by a question about liquid natural gas, according to SNL, an industry publication, and asked, “What’s L.N.G.?” “I want to see what his stance is on oil fracking, oil renewables and coal,” he said. “I would like to see coal be part of the energy mix.”
Mr. Trump has tripped over other policy terms as well.
In a recent Fox News interview, he said, “Department of Environmental, I mean, the D.E.P. is killing us environmentally,” evidently referring to the E.P.A.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump’s campaign was still finishing work on his remarks and deciding whether he would deliver them from a teleprompter, as he has with other major policy speeches. In recent weeks, he has delivered several policy addresses in Washington, including one on Israel before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and another on foreign policy.