Trump Administration Climate Agenda Is Essentially A Giveaway To Putin

January 27th, 2017 by Guest Contributor

Originally published on Nexus Media.

By Jeremy Deaton

The new administration’s policies are better for Russia than they are for the United States.

Scientists, economists, four-star generals and business leaders — like most Americans — want swift action on climate change, but Donald Trump intends to dismantle federal climate policy piece by piece. His energy agenda is a boon for coal, oil and gas companies.

It’s also a huge giveaway to Russia.

The new president has said he will roll back Obama-era climate regulations, pull out of the Paris Agreement and possibly lift sanctions on Russia — all of which would better serve Russia than the United States.

Russia will weather the climate crisis better than most other countries, including the United States. Rising temperatures will turn frozen tundra into potential farmland and melt Arctic sea ice that hampers offshore drilling. Because Russia’s economy centers on oil and gas extraction, Vladimir Putin has every incentive to thwart international efforts to fight climate change. Trump’s policies will help him do that.

Russia, a frigid petrostate, opposes climate action.

At the Paris climate talks, Putin called climate change “one of the gravest challenges humanity is facing,” but he’s previously said that “an increase of two or three degrees wouldn’t be so bad for a northern country like Russia.” Russian political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky has said Putin believes global warming “is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia.” Whatever his feelings, the Russian autocrat is not treating the climate crisis with any kind of urgency.

Under the Paris Agreement, Russia pledged to cut pollution by 30 percent below 1990 levels. It was in 1990 that Russian carbon emissions peaked. When the Iron Curtain came down, so did emissions, and they have yet to recover. By using 1990 as a baseline — instead of 2005, like other countries — Russia gave itself room to increase emissions and still fulfill its commitment under the Paris Agreement.

Russia has little interest in slowing global consumption of fossil fuels. Putin believes oil and gas are central to Russia becoming “a great economic power.” Fossil fuels account for a significant share of the country’s GDP and the large majority of its exports.

The United States doesn’t share Russia’s commitment to oil and gas. Fossil fuel production makes up a smaller share of the US GDP and a far smaller share of US exports.

The two countries also differ in terms of their vulnerability to climate change. In some ways, Russia stands to benefit from global warming. Rising temperatures will thaw its frozen reaches, adding millions of acres of potential farmland. By and large, climate change will produce more mild weather in Russia.

The same can’t be said for the United States. Most Americans will see fewer mild days as the climate warms. Persistent heat and drought could stunt US agriculture, crippling production of cash crops like corn, wheat and soybeans.

Trump’s energy plan is a giveaway to Russia.

Trump aims to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, scrap the Clean Power Plan and relax fuel economy standards — key components of the U.S. plan to curb carbon emissions. These policies shifts would send a signal to the international community that the United States isn’t serious about tackling climate change, inviting other countries to renege on their carbon-cutting commitments as well. By thwarting international climate action, Trump would help keep demand for Russian oil and gas aloft.

Trump’s pick for secretary of state, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, is an allyto Russian fossil fuel producers. As head of Exxon, Tillerson made a $500 billion deal with Russia’s state-owned oil company, Rosneft, to drill for oil made more accessible by that rapid disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

After Russia invaded Crimea, the U.S. imposed sanctions that blocked the deal. With Trump in the White House and Tillerson at the State Department, those sanctions could disappear, reviving an agreement that Rachel Maddow said was “expected to change the historical trajectory of Russia.”

Trump’s policies, though good for Russia, would imperil vulnerable Americans, like those already grappling with drought in California, floods in South Florida and severe storms along the Gulf Coast. By rolling back Obama-era climate policy, Trump would hamper job growth in the clean-energy sector.

Some Republicans, like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (CA) — described by Politico as “Putin’s top congressional ally” — see Trump’s stance towards Russia as pragmatic. Others, like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), have concerns about Russia, but they are willing to defer to the president on foreign affairs.

Both, in their own way, are enabling policies that give a boost to Russia’s state-run oil and gas production while undermining efforts to protect Americans from climate change — policies that are decidedly better for Putin than they are for the United States.

Reprinted with permission.











Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica member, supporter, or ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.

Sign up for our free daily newsletter or weekly newsletter to never miss a story.

Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Latest Cleantech Talk Episode