Steve Milloy, a previous member of the Trump transition team and notorious for his industry-funded criticisms of climate science, suggested reverting to unrestricted fossil fuel production and disregarding the EPA.

During his initial term, Milloy claimed that Trump filled his administration with individuals from the established political circles in Washington, and was hesitant to break down certain aspects of the government. According to Milloy, many of Trump’s appointees were not strong enough for their roles.

Despite his typical arrogance, Trump occasionally altered his rhetoric on climate change while he was president. This was evident in his reversal of previous statements claiming that the idea of climate change was fake. He maintained this stance for more than a year.without maligning climate science on Twitter
(renamed as X).

However, since becoming the leading candidate for the GOP, he has reverted to claiming that man-made climate change is not real. He has also made unsubstantiated accusations about wind turbines causing whale deaths and has expressed his desire to be a temporary “dictator” if elected, specifically to prioritize oil drilling.

At this time, numerous members of his past employees are developing an all-encompassing strategy to drastically reduce both policies and regulations related to fossil fuels and climate. Supporters of Trump anticipate that he will select individuals for his future administration who are even more opposed to addressing the issue of global warming.

The Trump campaign did not provide a response when asked for comment. However, Milloy argues that Trump has disregarded the guidance of his political advisors who advised him to take a softer stance on climate issues.

Dana Fisher, head of the Center for Environment, Community and Equity at American University, expressed concern about the shift in attitude, stating that it is significant and concerning. This change suggests that Trump is no longer focused on appealing to moderate and independent voters with regards to climate policy.

“He doesn’t feel the need to censor his language,” Fisher stated. “His strong rhetoric indicates that he is more inclined to support these endeavors and initiatives compared to when he was worried about how they would be received in the past.”

The Biden team has consistently criticized Trump’s dismissal of climate science, citing it as further evidence of his incompetence as president.

We are formulating a strategy for battle.

During his initial term, Trump focused on reversing and diminishing policies related to climate change.

During his time in office, he placed influential energy lobbyists in important roles, worked tirelessly to dismantle regulations on fossil fuels, and withdrew support from the Paris Agreement. His chosen officials actively opposed the closure of coal-burning power plants, going against the decisions of utilities based on financial reasons. Additionally, an investigation was launched on car manufacturers who had voluntarily committed to meeting strict clean-air requirements.

He consistently showed a lack of respect for mainstream research with his actions and statements on various scientific topics, such as using a Sharpie on a hurricane map, looking at a solar eclipse without proper eye protection, and suggesting the possibility of killing Covid with sunlight.

However, his government displayed hesitation in fully embracing climate denialism.

In 2018, the White House under Trump’s administration prevented a proposed hostile review of the National Climate Assessment, known as a “red team” review, according to a former advisor.told POLITICO’s E&E News at the time

An attempt to influence the next version of the report by including scientists who reject the seriousness of climate change did not come to fruition.

Furthermore, attempts to restructure a significant agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, by placing climate change skeptics in prominent positions were unsuccessful. Additionally, on the week before Trump’s presidency ended, the science office at the White House dismissed biased climate scientists who had made efforts to investigate the issue.

record in the government publication

A collection of pamphlets containing selectively chosen information and deceptive statements about the climate.

This time around, his followers are attempting to guarantee that a potential second term under Trump would not be unstable.

Numerous right-leaning organizations have united to propose climate objectives that would severely harm nearly all regulations on the fossil fuel sector. The Project 2025 initiative, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and co-written by former officials from the Trump administration, aims to redirect government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, towards promoting fossil fuel extraction rather than safeguarding public health.

“We are currently developing a strategy and organizing our resources,” stated Paul Dans, the director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, in an interview with E&E News last year. “This is the first time that the entire conservative movement has united to effectively prepare for assuming power on Day 1 and dismantling the existing administrative system.”

According to Will Happer, a former member of Trump’s National Security Council, during his initial term, Trump was overly preoccupied with the advice given by his political advisors.

He mentioned that Trump chose not to pursue a larger reorganization of national climate research, despite some of his advisors initiating the process. One of the initial steps would have involved examining the National Climate Assessment in detail, according to a retired physics professor from Princeton University who spoke to E&E News.

During a recent interview, Happer stated that the individual truly desired to complete the task, but lacked a reliable and manageable team. Happer personally witnessed this.

After the proposal was rejected, Happer resigned, but he stated that Trump promised him the opportunity to resume it after the election.

“He mentioned, ‘We had plans to proceed with this, but it has been delayed and the election is approaching. It would be unwise to begin now. Let’s wait until my second term,'” Happer recounted.

Is this acceptable to the voters?

Despite the enthusiasm of his followers, data shows that Trump’s adamant rejection of climate change may not be a successful stance in the 2024 election.

According to a recent CNN poll, 73% of American adults believe that the government needs to take more action to combat climate change. The majority of respondents want the government to reduce emissions by 50% by the year 2030. This sentiment is shared by 50% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats, as revealed by the poll.

A public policy expert reiterated that same viewpoint.

According to Andrew Rosenberg, a former top official at NOAA under the Clinton administration, the United States has experienced a number of severe and harmful extreme weather occurrences since Trump’s initial campaign in 2015. These events have raised awareness about the consequences of disregarding climate policies.

According to Rosenberg, who is currently a senior fellow at the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey School of Public Policy, relying on the dismissal of fundamental scientific principles may attract Trump’s supporters but could potentially turn away independent voters who have the power to determine the outcome of the election.

“According to Rosenberg, eight years ago he may have had a more open-minded audience. However, he now uses such extreme language that it comes across as strange.”