In a second term agenda, the Trump administration projected a profound focus on the realm of energy, aggressively pushing the concept of ‘Drill, baby, drill.’ This clear strategy prioritizes America’s ascendancy to ‘energy dominance’ through the widespread development of ‘new pipelines’ and ‘new refiners’ that amplify fossil fuel output. This approach is entirely divergent from the Biden administration’s stand and places a considerably heavier weight on crude oil and natural gas production instead of endeavoring for a shift towards renewable energy sources.
Moreover, the Trump administration has acted contrarily to the Biden administration by criticizing subsidies allocated for clean energy investments and suggesting the annulment of funds dedicated to those subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act. This position underestimates the role fossil fuels have in accelerating climate change, potentially damaging America’s contribution to combating the complex issue.
Chris Wright, an avid promoter of fracking from the oil industry, has been appointed to helm the Department of Energy. North Dakota’s governor, Doug Burgum, has been chosen as an ‘energy czar’ and the leader for the Interior Department. Former Representative Lee Zeldin, an advocate of deregulation, has been designated as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, the extent of the administration’s influence is finite.
While Mr. Trump can take bold measures to amplify fossil fuel production, actual increases in oil and gas extraction will hinge significantly on private industry dynamics and market economics. Wright, Burgum, and Zeldin have indicated readiness to implement the president-elect’s vision, inclusive of alterations to public land drilling and expedited permitting for oil and gas enterprises.
Two principal routes are available to Mr. Trump to foster fossil fuel production. Firstly, he can allow more public lands and waters to be used for exploration, development, and extraction. Secondly, he can simplify the regulatory maneuvers governing fossil fuel operations.
Under the Trump administration, the Interior Department, containing the Bureau of Land Management as well as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, are likely to control a noteworthy proportion of the nation’s public lands and waters. Also, the Agriculture Department, housing the Forest Service, another entity responsible for public lands’ oversight, will fall under Trump’s purview.
Mr. Trump’s first term manifested an inclination to broaden public lands for oil and gas drilling, which serves as an indication of future plans. As the Bureau of Land Management indicates, there was a spike in total acres offered for oil and gas leases during Trump’s first term compared to Biden’s tenure and Obama’s second term.
Rolling back regulations to facilitate fossil fuel production for the private sector serves as the second crucial avenue Trump could tread. Every oil and gas project, like the construction of a new pipeline, currently demands extensive approval by federal agencies such as the EPA. The Trump administration may opt for executive action to expedite such processes by cutting as many redundant steps as possible.
This amalgamation of liberalizing the constraints currently placed on oil and gas enterprises and simplifying new project pursuits ties back to Trump’s promise to ‘slash the red tape’ on the industry, clearly contrasting Biden’s heavily regulated stance.
Despite the Biden administration’s attempt to throttle back the industry, the US still remained the highest oil and gas producer globally. Whether they are incentivized to escalate production is contingent on the businesses’ financial wisdom. The increasing investment in renewable energy sources by more countries, including the US, has heightened market competition and could impact whether businesses deem it prudent to intensify their fossil fuel output.
All in all, while Trump possesses the authority to attempt the realization of his campaign pledge, it might not unfold as he has promised. This pinpoints the significant incongruities between the orientations of the two administrations: Biden, whose efforts have reinforced the ideology of Green New Deal adherents, and Trump, whose innovative, market-driven philosophy provides a stark contrast, insisting on keeping the fossil fuel industry alive and thriving.