������Ƶ

The fourth year of the Trump presidency is right around the corner—which means it’s time for our annual retrospective on his administration’s climate and environmental actions.

But first, a reminder of what we’re up against: From record Antarctic to the , we’re confronted with constant signs of a world on the verge of climate apocalypse. This year, scientists that we're , and that catastrophe is coming sooner than initially predicted. If we continue on our current course, we’re likely to see catastrophic shifts in weather, agriculture, and even global habitability—all within the next 30 years.

If humanity intends to survive, the world to achieve net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 at the latest—meaning massive changes to our fossil fuel use, deforestation, agricultural practices, and industrial processes. Those prospects, however, appear dim at present: 2019 saw emissions hit a , despite increasing at a slower pace than in previous years.

In the midst of all this, Trump has continued not only to remain inactive in the fight against climate change, but to aggressively roll back environmental protections and accelerate the doomsday clock. Read on for some of 2019’s key environmental developments and trends.

Fossil Fuel Production Is on the Rise, But at a High Environmental Cost

Since its in 2006, the United States’ net import of oil and petroleum products has dropped to a record low. But before you get too excited, that’s not the result of reduced energy consumption (we’re using than ever) or increased reliance on alternative energy sources (renewable energy’s share of total U.S. energy use has just 1 percent since 2016). Rather, we’re importing less because we’re producing more: the United States both Saudi Arabia and Russia in 2018 to become the world’s top producer of crude oil, while our natural gas production has reached .

This soaring production, of course, has its costs. Natural resource extraction is a dangerous process—the Keystone Pipeline approximately 383,000 gallons of oil into North Dakota in 2019, while of oil spills in the Gulf Coast leak an estimated 13 million gallons of oil into the region per year. Fracking man-made earthquakes in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Texas.

������Ƶ response to all this has been to remove the paltry regulations that existed to protect against environmental degradation as a result of natural resource extraction. In recent years, his administration has water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indigenous lands, a rule requiring oil rig owners to prove they can pay to remove their oil rigs, and construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. In 2019, the government reduced testing requirements for blowout preventers—key devices in the prevention of oil spills—and opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The latter decision, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, could have “catastrophic consequences”—including —for bird and seal species.

Trump Is Rolling Back Measures That Keep Chemicals Out of Air and Water

������Ƶ policies have also impacted American air. , pollution an estimated 196,930 premature American deaths per year; under Trump, that number is increasing. After by 24.2 percent from 2009 to 2016, particulate pollution increased by 5.5 percent from 2016 to 2018, leading to 9,700 additional premature deaths annually.

these recent increases may be attributable to the Trump administration’s of 24 different air pollution regulations and accords. 2019 saw the of the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which reduces the federal government’s role in regulating emissions—keeping coal plants operating longer into the future and undercutting progress on carbon emissions reductions.

At the same time, Trump is attempting to increase the federal government’s role in determining automobile emissions—specifically, by relaxing California’s strict fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, which is followed by fourteen states and the District of Columbia.

And it’s not only American air that’s being contaminated. Toxins in our drinking water continue to take additional lives, with scientists per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—more commonly known as PFAS—to heart disease, kidney and testicular cancer, and other diseases. Even as environmental groups and concerned citizens urge the government to address PFAS contamination, however, Trump November legislation to set a drinking water standard for PFAS.

Environmental Legislation Is Being Dismantled by ������Ƶ Appointees

Trump has continued his trend of appointing climate change deniers and corporate lobbyists to the government’s most critical environmental positions. After former EPA Administrator (and ) Scott Pruitt resigned in 2018 amidst federal ethics investigations, Trump appointed Andrew Wheeler—a former coal lobbyist and architect of a fossil fuel-friendly “”—to the EPA’s top post in February.

Similarly, after Ryan Zinke resigned as Interior Secretary last January, Trump appointed former fossil fuel lobbyist David Bernhardt. As deputy secretary, Bernhardt that restricted officials’ ability to use sound science and write regulations; that minimize the environmental impact of activity on federal land and waters; and , including the Endangered Species Act, in an attempt to streamline energy development on federal lands. As Interior Secretary, he's expected to continue Zinke’s agenda of rolling back environmental regulations, opening land to fossil fuel development, and bailing out coal companies.

Trump Is Stonewalling Scientific Research

An outcome of these overhauled agencies? Significant roadblocks to collecting environmental data and reporting publicly on the state of the planet.

In what is seen as an attempt to appease and reduce the regulatory burden on manufacturing and industry groups, Wheeler released a memo last May recommending revisions to for assessing the costs and benefits of regulating pollutants—a move pushed for by the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups.

The immediate effects have been confusion, reduced transparency, and decreased effectiveness in the regulation of pollutants, as calculations are now often duplicated with inconsistent results.

At the same time, the administration is that would prevent regulators drafting public health policy from using any academic study that doesn't publicly disclose its raw data—including confidential medical records. Because studies drawing links between pollution and human health impacts often rely on confidential health data, the proposal would make it virtually impossible for legislators to draft policy grounded in strong science—and, since the proposal might also apply retroactively, would allow the EPA to roll back regulations that don’t meet these data disclosure standards.

The Power to Stop Climate Change Is in the Hands of American Citizens

Not all hope is lost. In recent years, the world has seen mounting public awareness and action around the climate crisis—and both government and industry are paying attention. The has spurred , , and legislation around single-use plastics, while corporations have responded to an exponential increase in plant-based consumption with an expanding array of meat alternatives.

Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change mitigation, consumer-based change is playing at the margins. Seventy-one percent of fossil fuel emissions are generated by ; true environmental progress will require bold, sweeping policy proposals and systemic economic restructuring.

What these shifts in consumer trends, the rise of the youth-led , and vocal for climate change's inclusion in the Democratic primary debates do prove, however, is that the Overton window on climate is moving rapidly and sharply to the left. Environmental policy proposals that would have been considered radical and even disqualifying in 2016 are now mainstream—a litmus test for candidates from an increasingly progressive base.

There is now a consensus among the Democratic primary candidates that net-zero emissions are a critical goal for the United States. What separates them is how to best achieve this target—and whether getting there will be enough.

At this moment, the power to advance truly meaningful climate action lies squarely in the hands of the American voter. The question is: Does the American voter want it? Or will we settle for four more years of environmental policy under Trump?