Is there an Environmental Candidate for President of the U.S.?
That depends on one's frame of reference!
A note to my readers: This is a rather long account of candidate views and actions related to the environment. I was about to shorten it when I realized that doing so would cut important details that allow one to better judge the candidates. Actually, a lot more information on each could be included, but I’ve done my best to paint what I think is a fairly revealing picture of where candidates stand on the environment—the most important issue of our time. If you don’t have time to read this, you can listen to it for free on your mobile phone after downloading the Substack app. Thank you for being here with me on Scale Down Substack!
WITH THE UPCOMING U.S. presidential election in November, I have—to the best of my ability—reviewed where presidential candidates stand on environmental matters. Presenting this is a somewhat risky proposition. I may not have found all the significant information on the candidates, and my call on what is “significant” may lose some of you, my readers. Also, I am viewing the candidates from a “scale down” perspective, through the lens of what needs to be done to save the natural world, as opposed to what many would insist is “politically realistic.”
In this vein, I consider the presidential candidates for their potential to promote less consumption, population stabilization, and greater respect for all life. Too much is at stake for this wonderful planet Earth to do otherwise.
While it’s relatively easy to judge candidates on climate change, pollution, and conservation, it is a real challenge to assess where they stand on the primary drivers of the global ecological crisis—excessive consumption, population, and anthropocentrism. War is also an important environmental issue (especially the risk of blowing up the world) although it’s often not seen that way.
I hope you’ll find what follows to be a helpful assessment of the candidates. My bias (of course!) is for someone who might possibly trigger major policy and cultural changes that would benefit the living world. In a few months or so, I may post a revised version, maybe even include an endorsement. Any suggestions you may have for an update are most welcome.
My attention here is obviously on Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the latter candidate since he has an outside chance of becoming president. Other candidates, such as Jill Stein, Cornel West, and “Dave the Planet” are protest candidates with important messages, but sadly have zero chance for reasons I won’t get into here.
JOE BIDEN
Joe Biden’s emphasis is squarely on renewable energy, climate change, and economic growth. His vision is to cut U.S. carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2030. Biden wants to rebuild and expand the nation’s energy capabilities with renewable energy, while continuing to supply fossil fuels for as long as needed to drive the economic engine. Biden favors economic expansion while promising to simultaneously cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Biden is a career politician who was first elected in 1973 as U.S. Senator in Delaware. In his early years as a senator, he is said to have focused on consumer protection and environmental issues, and supported increased funding for Amtrack rail. However, I am unable to find anything in Biden’s background that suggests a relationship with wildlife and nature, or signals special motivation to protect them.
Energy: Biden promoted and signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law. It provides $386 billion dollars over 10 years for renewable energy incentives, grants, and tax credits for electric vehicles, renewable energy infrastructure and industries, energy efficiency equipment, and sequestration of carbon dioxide, with lesser amounts (9% of total) for conservation, forestry, and rural development. The Biden administration has also issued standards, guidelines, and regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, certain fossil fuel facilities, landfills, and abandoned mines. It also cancelled Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil and gas leases issued by Trump, cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline extension, and withdrew approximately 2.8 million acres from future oil and gas leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. Also, it created a 10-mile protective buffer from new extractive activities around Chaco Canyon National Historic Park.
On the downside, Biden weakened the National Environmental Policy Act process for environmental review of energy projects, apparently to fast track renewables. With his presidential re-election campaign in mind, Biden backtracked on climate plans in an effort to court “swing state” voters. His administration also approved oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a massive new oil project in Alaska, and the Mountain Valley gas pipeline as well as thousands of gas drilling permits on federal lands, despite a hard pledge to the contrary.
Biden supporters argue that he must make concessions to the fossil fuel industry in order to gain enough support to pass massive legislation such as the IRA. However, many environmentalists say he has sold out to industry.
Biden promoted the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which provided $850 billion for roads, bridges, public transportation, electric power infrastructure, and water storage, with lesser sums for nuclear power plants and electric vehicles. For a law that rolled multiple development and environment projects into a single piece of legislation, it is difficult to say whether its impact will be generally positive or negative for the environment.
Conservation: Under the banner “America the Beautiful,” Biden called for measures to conserve, connect, and restore 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030 “for the sake of our economy, our health, and our well-being.” The program includes $1 billion in grants.
However, it remains to be seen whether the “30 by 30” conservation goal would significantly increase the amount of land that is actually protected. The federal government manages about 28% of the total land area of the U.S., some 2.27 billion acres. Most of this is already considered “conserved” by land management agencies. Primary focus is on multiple use (often cynically called “multiple abuse”) of land for humans rather than on safeguarding other life. Only about 12% of the U.S. currently receives a fairly high level of protection as wilderness (67 million acres), national parks and wildlife refuges (180 million acres, with some overlap with wilderness) and state parks (14 million acres). Even these are not strict nature reserves as virtually no such reserves exist in the U.S.
Biden restored Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in southern Utah to their original size after being dramatically cut by Trump. Biden also restored protection for an expansive marine conservation area along the New England coast that was being for commercial fishing by order of Trump.
Biden’s actions regarding wildlife have been mixed. His administration provided $25 million under the IRA for bison conservation, mainly through efforts with Indigenous Tribes. Historically, there were about 60 million wild bison yet only about 15,000 have been restored; the money allotted will help but it is only a pittance of what is needed to achieve ecological justice for bison. The Biden Administration also disappointed wildlife advocates by not delivering on promises to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, and by rejecting petitions to federally protect or restore wildlife, such as Joshua trees in California, wolves in the Northern Rockies, and jaguars in the Southwest.
Biden ended most wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border. Such infrastructure, intended to foil unauthorized entry into the U.S., also impedes passage of wildlife, increases wildlife mortality, and alters natural water flows. Recently, however, the administration moved to waive the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other environmental laws to facilitate construction of additional border wall in Texas to meet a congressional appropriations requirement. Wildlife advocates harshly criticized the decision.
Pollution: The Biden Administration raised by 25% the air quality standard for fine particulate matter harmful to public health. Primary sources of the pollution are industry, wildfires, and the burning of fossil fuels, making the higher standard tough to attain. Biden’s emphasis on renewable energy is intended to reduce pollution, especially carbon emissions. However, one has to weigh the environmental benefits of increased renewable energy against environmental impacts associated with its production and transmission. This “lesser of the evils” situation is, of course, not Biden’s fault. However, Biden is responsible for managing the shift away from fossil fuels without unduly damaging the environment. An important way to do so would be to reduce energy consumption given that 80% of it depends on fossil fuels. This would cut carbon emissions as well as help safeguard the environment in other ways. Unfortunately, Biden has expressed no interest in scaling down energy use, almost certainly because of his devotion to economic growth.
Consumption and Population: Biden ignores the problem of overconsumption and its role in climate change and the ecological crisis, and does not have a population policy for the U.S. He is pro-immigration and draws no connection between immigration and environmental consequences.
Anthropocentrism: Biden’s concerns for the environment appear to be strictly related to human wellbeing and interests, as is typical for political leaders. To my knowledge, Biden has never sought to protect non-human life for its own sake (intrinsic worth).
Risk of war: During Biden’s presidency, violent conflicts involving the U.S. increased, most notably in Ukraine and the Middle East. Only you can judge the degree to which Biden is responsible. The risk of nuclear war varies with wide range of factors, but a significant one is what a U.S. president does to lower or heighten the risk. That risk is higher today than at any time since 1953, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union engaged in nuclear weapon testing. During his presidency (2021-2024), Biden could not lower the risk, mainly because of Russia’s military invasion of eastern Ukraine and his response to it. Russia has warned that it will use nuclear weapons if pressed to a point where its sovereignty or independence is threatened.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
Robert Kennedy, Jr. emphasizes fighting pollution, conserving nature, and ending crony capitalism. He is a career environmental attorney who, over a span of 40 years, sued industrial polluters and government agencies for failing to enforce environmental laws. He was a Pace Law School faculty member for three decades and cofounded Pace's Environmental Litigation Clinic.
Kennedy started Waterkeeper Alliance which became a global clean water advocacy organization. He served as its chairman and attorney. Kennedy also started the Children’s Health Defense to address childhood chronic disease and toxic exposures. Kennedy’s books include Crimes Against Nature and a children's book on Saint Francis of Assisi and his teaching on the sanctity of life.
Kennedy grew up on Cape Cod where he bonded with the ocean and outdoors, and relates how he explored wildlife and nature as a youngster, and regretted the harms done to them.
Energy: Kennedy favors a global transition to clean energy as part of a broader effort to protect the environment. However, he believes that climate politics is overly divisive and intends to focus on what people can relate to most, such as direct harm to communities from coal mining and damage to fisheries from ocean acidification related to climate change. Kennedy wants to end subsidies for the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries as the primary means to limit them.
In short, Kennedy believes that to best combat climate change, emphasis should be on pollution caused by the fossil fuel industry and ways to clamp down on it. When Kennedy rejects absolutism on the climate issue, his critics charge that he empowers that industry despite his advocacy for renewable energy. Kennedy points to how the fossil fuel industry is allowed to subvert government through lobbying to avoid the true costs and consequences of its actions, ranging from oils spills, air pollution, and destruction of landscapes.
Pollution: Kennedy expresses contempt for corporate polluters: “You show me a polluter, I’ll show you a subsidy, I’ll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and force the public to pay his production costs.” He detests corporate capture of the “free market,” a system he otherwise supports.
Kennedy’s environmental lawsuits prevailed over the likes of General Electric (water pollution), Monsanto (the herbicide Roundup), and DuPont (dumping of heavy metals). Kennedy claims that as president he’ll restore the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture “to their proper role of protecting health and the environment” after years of being corrupted by corporate influence. Kennedy wants to make plastic pollution a top environmental target—if elected “one of my number one priorities. We have to get rid of the plastics.” Kennedy promises to “incentivize the transition of industry to zero-waste cycles and clean energy sources, and forge agreements with other countries to implement these policies throughout the global supply chain. These first two policies will vastly reduce the toxic waste, industrial poisons, and pesticides that make people and ecosystems sick.”
Conservation: Kennedy’s lawsuits against polluters have been tied to ecosystem protection for people and wildlife. He expresses pride in having joined a blue-collar coalition of commercial and recreational fishermen to reclaim the Hudson River through hundreds of lawsuits against polluters.
As an activist, Kennedy was arrested on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, and spent a month in jail in 2001 for trespassing in protest against bombing exercises by the U.S. Navy. He was part of a lawsuit against the Navy on behalf of the island’s residents. A decade later, he was arrested in Washington, D.C., while demonstrating against the Keystone XL pipeline. He also protested the Dakota Access Pipeline at the Standing Rock Reservation in 2016.
Kennedy has advocated for wilderness. For example, he pushed for a national monument around Grand Canyon National Park to prevent uranium mining and pollution, and commercial development harmful to the Colorado River’s wildlife and Indigenous cultures.
As president, Kennedy promises to “protect wild lands from further development, by curbing mining, logging, oil drilling, and suburban sprawl,” by becoming “a global advocate for rainforest preservation and marine restoration,” and by rethinking “development policies that promised economic growth while ignoring ecological sustainability, and ended up delivering neither.” Kennedy also claims that he would “redirect agricultural subsidies so as to encourage regenerative practices.”
Consumption and Population: Kennedy doesn’t speak directly to the problems of overconsumption and overpopulation, at least to my knowledge. His emphasis on pollution abatement by holding industry accountable could have the effect of reducing consumption of some nonessential and wasteful products. Prices for plastic items, for example, would increase, triggering less consumption of those products. Kennedy believes that government should reward good behavior “which is efficiency, and punish bad behavior which is inefficiency and waste.” His promotion of efficency in the general sense, rather than sufficiency, roughly parallels that of Biden but less so of Trump (see below).
Anthropocentrism: Like most conservationists, Kennedy views nature as a resource for people. However, he also believes that it deserves protection for its own sake, and promises to be a great conservation president. Kennedy emphasizes respect for more-than-human life and nature, often drawing a connection between them and the divine.
Risk of War: Kennedy is outspoken on the risk of nuclear war, especially in connection with the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He believes that war could have been avoided and promises to end it. More generally, Kennedy intends to dramatically cut military spending and curtail U.S. military interventions.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Donald Trump emphasizes conventional economic growth powered by fossil fuels as well as renewable energy. He is a career real estate developer who prides himself on making deals. Before becoming president, Trump hosted a popular reality TV show. I have not found anything in Trump’s background that suggests a relationship with wildlife and nature, or signals special motivation to protect them.
Energy: Trump promotes expanded energy production to drive economic growth, lower energy pricing, and weaker environmental regulations that may hinder growth. He unequivocally supports the coal industry, states rights to set environmental guidelines, and less stringent fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, approved the Keystone XL, Dakota Access, and New Burgos pipelines, opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing, revoked a federal coal leasing moratorium on federal lands, accelerated approval for mines, halved the time needed to approve drilling permits on public lands, and limited public review of federal infrastructure projects to speed up the permitting of freeways, power plants and pipelines. However, in a move contrary to his advocacy for fossil fuels, Trump placed a moratorium on offshore drilling along the coasts of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.
Conservation: (Oceans) Trump acted to combat marine debris by signing the Save Our Seas Act and by introducing a federal strategy to reduce it. However, Trump vetoed the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act, claiming that it was unnecessary and contrary to economic goals. He also opened the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument to commercial fishing, and issued executive orders to boost economic growth of coastal communities and promote ocean industries.
(Forests) Trump promoted the “Trillion Trees” Act for global tree planting and the Replant Act for reforestation (the former was passed by Congress, the latter was not). Trump also signed the Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2018 to advance conservation in developing countries and efforts to protect coral reefs.
For the U.S., Trump pushed for more forest management to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires in order to protect people, infrastructure, forests, and rangelands. The devil is in the details on the ground. For example, removing too many dead and downed trees to reduce the risk of wildfire and building more forest access roads can degrade wildlife habitat.
(Wildlife and public lands) Trump advocated for the Great American Outdoors Act which included $9.5 billion to maintain national parks, forests, and associated lands. He also signed the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act which designated over a million acres of wilderness, supported land and water conservation work, established programs for wildfire abatement and control, and expanded recreational hunting and fishing on federal lands (which, for many, is not “conservation”). In that same vein, Trump’s Department of the Interior increased recreational, hunting, and fishing opportunities on public lands, including 138 national wildlife refuges.
Under Trump, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service moved to protect the monarch butterfly through habitat conservation on rights of way and related lands that could include up to 2.3 million acres. However, to "provide regulatory certainty for industry,” the deal precluded granting the butterfly protection under Endangered Species Act.
Trump took credit for expanding the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, designating a portion of eastern Lake Ontario in New York and the Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary as national marine sanctuaries, and expanding the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Trump also signed the America’s Conservation Enhancement Act which reaffirmed the Chesapeake Bay restoration program and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
On the downside, the Trump Administration opened approximately 9 million acres of sage grouse habitat to oil and gas development, attempted to remove the Yellowstone grizzly bear from the endangered species list, and exempted Alaska’s Tongass National Forest from the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which prohibits tree harvest and road construction within certain protected areas. Trump also dramatically downsized national monuments in Utah “to allow for increased recreational access and other uses” of public land. Trump is widely considered to have greatly weakened implementation of the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws.
Trump built 80 miles of barrier wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and fortified or walled roughly 370 miles of existing barriers and fencing. In total, nearly 700 miles of the 1,954-mile U.S.-Mexico border has walls, fences and other barriers. This impedes movement, dispersal, and physical wellbeing of wild animals and plants, including endangered animals such as jaguar, ocelot, and Sonoran pronghorn. However, border barriers may lessen direct impacts on wildlife, vegetation, and soils caused by immigration and border patrol activities. (As a park biologist, I evaluated these impacts at Organ Pipe National Monument in 2006).
Pollution: Trump shifted significant responsibility for air quality from federal to state agencies while taking actions to protect children from lead-based paints and against heavy metals in drinking water. He claims to have invested over $38 billion in clean water infrastructure. At the same time, his administration weakened the coal ash disposal rule, and volatile organic compound standards for oil and natural gas production and processing facilities. Trump often placed business and state economic interests above environmental concerns, making good on his promise to promote a business-friendly, deregulatory agenda that is supposed to help consumers.
Consumption and Population: Trump dedicated his administration “to removing unnecessary and harmful regulations that restrain economic growth.” This was bad news given that unrestrained growth means greater consumption and waste, and harsher environmental impacts.
Like just about everyone, Trump favors greater efficiency—at least to some degree. Under his administration, federal agencies reduced energy use for buildings, vehicles, and equipment by 3% and increased on-site renewable energy consumption by almost 5%. Likewise, federal agencies reduced water consumption in buildings by 3.8%, reduced petroleum fuel use in Federal vehicle fleets by 1.4%, and cut GHG emissions from Federal operations by 2.7%. Nonetheless, for the nation as a whole, Trump stymied efficiency by lowering vehicle, appliance, and other efficiency standards.
Trump promises to stem unauthorized immigration to the U.S. but like other major candidates has no population stabilization policy. His administration’s actions apparently had only a minor effect on authorized immigration.
Trump reinstated the “global gag rule” (later rescinded by Biden) which required foreign nongovernmental organizations receiving U.S. global health funding to certify that they will not use funding from any source to “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.” Apart from the social injustice of the rule, and a decline in family planning services in at least some cases, it is unclear as to whether this rule had an effect on population growth.
Anthropocentrism: Trump describes conservation as “our responsibility to protect God’s wondrous creation for future generations…[our] God-given treasures…our abundance of natural resources.” For Trump, Earth Day is “a celebration of the blessings given to us by our Creator.” Unfortunately, I found nothing in his background or actions that suggests deference to non-human life for its intrinsic worth.
Risk of war: During his presidency, Trump was arguably less inclined to engage the U.S. in warfare than other recent presidents. However, Trump certainly did not reduce the risk of nuclear war when he voided an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program and terminated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between the United States and Russia. Trump also promoted increased military budgets. Nonetheless, he vows to end the Russia-Urkanian war which, insofar as NATO becomes more directly involved, could trigger nuclear warfare.
***
Whew, there you have it! It’s easy to conclude that we don’t have a “scale down” candidate among the 2024 primary contenders for the U.S. presidency. Certainly, there are clear and striking differences between candidates. But I seriously doubt that these differences will change the ecologically murderous trajectory that the U.S. and most of the world is on. I hope I’m wrong.
Take your pick as to who among the candidates you think might conceivably point us in the right direction. If none, vote anyway—and, above all, speak out for what you believe in!
SCALE DOWN is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thank you!