What does a new, better-prepared Trump Administration mean for the water we drink, the air we breathe, the safety of our food, our climate?
Amy talking with Clean Wisconsin’s Evan Feinauer and Brett Korte to dig into some of these issues and look at the road ahead to fight back.
Host:
Amy Barrilleaux
Guests:
Evan Feinauer, Clean Wisconsin attorney
Brett Korte, Clean Wisconsin attorney
Background Reading:
Federal Funds for Wisconsin – How the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are helping communities and homeowners across the state
Where to Listen:
Transcript:
Amy: What does a new, better prepared Trump Administration mean for the water we drink, the air we breathe, the safety of our food, our climate? We know a long list of federal environmental protections and programs will be rolled back or dismantled during the next presidential administration. We’re talking about a erasing new standards for toxic chemicals in our drinking water, pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, diminishing wetland protections, pulling funding to replace lead pipes, undermining the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon, axing programs that help people weatherize their homes, getting rid of support for manufacturing batteries and solar panels, and of course, lots more drilling and fracking. If you think this feels overwhelming, you’re not wrong. There are also plans to target the unbiased science and research that happens at our federal agencies, replacing civil servants with political appointees. So now that I’ve got you thoroughly angry, sad, scared, name the emotion, we’re going to dig into some of those issues and look at the road ahead to fight back. I may be very low, and this is state of change from Clean Wisconsin. It’s no secret environmental protections will be in the crosshairs come January. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Joining me are Clean Wisconsin attorneys Brett Korte and Evan Feinauer our thank you so much for being here.
Brett: Thanks, Amy. Happy to be on the show.
Evan: Yeah, great to be here. Thanks.
Amy: Evan doesn’t have the biggest smile on when he says it’s great to be here because it’s been a it’s been a rough, I think, couple of days for anybody who cares about the environment. There’s a lot of talk concern, speculation about what a new Trump administration means for the environment. And I think a lot of that is focused on climate change. So, Brett, I’ll start with you. When you look back at the previous Trump administration and then the one that’s coming, what are the first things that you expect will happen with respect to the United States federal government and actions to take on climate change?
Brett: So last time Trump was elected, one of the first things we saw was the US pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement. We also saw rollbacks on previously issued EPA rules that regulate GHG emissions from power plants, and those are just kind of the top of the line things that come to mind. It trickles down through almost every federal agency that you can think of. And all of those, you know, progress that’s been made in the last four years is certainly at risk.
Amy: So let’s talk about that a little bit more. The pulling out of the Paris agreement, I’m not sure if everybody, you know, really knows what the implications of that would be. When you explain to somebody why that is significant, what do you say?
Brett: So right now, the Paris Agreement includes 194 countries. That’s including the U.S. for the moment. And that only excludes three. That list is Iran, Libya and Yemen. So three major oil producing countries in the Middle East that aren’t part of it. But what the Paris Agreement does is brings together the global community and countries set individual climate targets based on what’s available to them, where they’re at in their own economic development. And as a global community, the Paris Agreement and the signatories are working towards limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2°C by 2050. And that’s the inflection point that scientists have said, you know, that’s where we need to be to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Everything from drought and displacement of populations, sea level rise, all of it. So with the U.S. not being a part of that, it would really abdicate the U.S. leadership on these issues from a global perspective. Like I said, 98% of countries are a part of this. And if the U.S. isn’t there, doesn’t have a seat at the table, it’s going to undermine efforts from other countries that may be worried about being competitive economically. And it just doesn’t show the kind of leadership that we know Americans want from their elected officials on this issue.
Amy: So I think, you know, you’re you’ve heard already a lot of drill, baby, drill, frack, baby, frack kind of language coming out of the Trump campaign and future Trump administration. But I think soon you’re going to hear, well, this is what Americans want. We have a mandate to drill more, to move away from EVs, to pull out of the Paris Agreement. Evan, feel free to chime in here, too. What’s your reaction to this kind of mandate language that we’re going to be hearing?
Evan: You know, I think it’s just fundamentally factually wrong. You know, I think that that’s what the oil and gas industry would like to be true, that this is somehow representing a change in position of the American people on the need to do a quick energy transition. Nothing’s changed. Most people understand that climate change is a huge problem and that we need to be getting off fossil fuels sooner rather than later. The people who don’t want that to happen, the oil and gas industry. Rather famously, it was reported during the minister during the campaign, you know, met with then candidate Trump and he said, give me $1 billion to my campaign and I’ll give you everything you want. Well, that’s what we should expect to see happen now. But what they can’t do is pretend like this is what the American people want. We just know that We know that from so many surveys and other things that have happened that. Climate change is important to people and they want to see continued action. So we’re on the right side of history on this. We’re on the right side of the policy preferences of the American people, and we can’t let anybody get confused about that. Now.
Amy: Talk about action around climate change, the Biden administration famously passed the biggest investment to fight climate change in American history, called the Inflation Reduction Act. And we’ve seen a lot of federal investments coming to support manufacture of EV batteries, to support large scale wind and solar supporting, you know, kind of home actions like installing rooftop solar, better insulation, things like that. And so the question that we’re hearing now is what’s going to happen to the IRA, that big federal investment to fight climate change? Brett, what do you kind of see as the things that may get pushed back or rolled back and the things that have a likelihood or at least a chance of staying?
Brett: So the Trump campaign has talked about repealing the IRA. There’s also the bipartisan infrastructure law that had a lot of great climate investments in it. I’m not so sure about it that Congress would would do that. I hope they won’t. We’ve seen millions, billions of dollars in investment being made all across the country in clean energy. These projects, this money is going to people all across the political spectrum, tons of people that are represented by Republicans in Congress. For example, just in Wisconsin, since the IRA was passed in 2022, there’s been over $920 million in investment just in Wisconsin in climate, in clean energy projects. That’s all spurred by the Inflation Reduction Act. So it’s leveraging private investment. It’s allowing us to produce the things we need to facilitate the green energy transition here in the United States. It goes back to the leadership point I was making with the Paris Agreement. The IRA and the associated bills were passed not only to address climate change, but as jobs act as ways to help spur the US economy and make the clean energy transition something that is benefiting Americans all across the country. So what we’ve done is, you know, we’re trying to do more of that manufacturing for solar panels or other parts we need here domestically. We’re trying to have a homegrown workforce that’s giving people good paying jobs to be able to facilitate these projects. And we’re seeing that happen. We’re seeing it work. I think it would be a real mistake for a Republican like Congress to pull the rug out from underneath that investment. There’s tons more money that’s supposed to be coming out through the program. And I really question whether some of these Republican representatives in Congress or senators would really like to see that investment be ripped away from their own constituents. So we’ll see what happens. It’s certainly on my mind. And again, I think when you think about it from the economic perspective and what it’s done to help the economy recover from Covid and other things, you know, address offshoring of of manufacturing jobs, it’s trying to address all those things. So hopefully folks see the benefits and encourage their elected officials to keep it in place.
Amy: And I think it’s worth noting that a lot of these manufacturing facilities for batteries, for example, that kind of fuel our electrification, our move to a clean energy future are in states that just, I guess, turned red for Trump. So that would include Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio. States like that are states that are seeing direct jobs in manufacturing benefits from the IRA. I k now we were talking a little bit earlier about, okay, so if the the IRA is kind of stripped away or dismantled or the portions that can be stopped or are stopped, it doesn’t mean that the clean energy transition is going to stop globally. It just means that we won’t be a big player anymore. And there was some discussion about China and what’s going to happen if we step away from this manufacturing of the clean energy components. What what do you see happening there?
Evan: Yeah. So one of the few things that there seems to be a bipartisan consensus on in Washington is the need to posture our, ,our economy in a very particular way with regard to China. And that’s why you saw support for things like the chips Chips Act on microprocessors and things like that. And the idea here basically is, look, other countries in South America and Asia and Europe, they’re going to want solar panels. They’re going to want batteries, They’re going to want electric vehicles. They’re going to be made somewhere. We want to just like we were in generations past, be the leaders with the best products, the most efficient processes and the workers here to do those things. So we’re selling our products to other people. And the fear is, is if we don’t keep these incentives in place to build those products here and have those jobs here, we’re basically completely just forfeiting the game and letting China win because they’re going to keep pushing on this. They’re investing tons of money in this. It’s unbelievable the amount of money that that government is putting into trying to win the energy transition even while they’re still burning coal and building all kinds of dirty stuff. They understand where the future is headed. And it’d be a real missed opportunity and a real mistake to just give up now on that.
Brett: I’d like to just add, you know, solar is the cheapest way to generate energy today no matter what. And I don’t think that we’re necessarily going to see a step back from that from utilities and other people planning what the grid is going to look like. You know, they have a mandate to do the most cost effective thing for their customers and in many cases. So we’re going to continue to see solar be a major factor in how we get our electricity. So it just goes back to that question Evan was addressing like where do we want the benefits of those projects to be? Do we want them to be here in manufacturing communities and with our own workforce, or do we want to see that offshored? And I think everyone should see the benefit in continuing to encourage those projects to be, you know, mostly manufactured built here for our benefit.
Amy: So I guess there’s a chance that parts of the IRA could could make it through a Trump administration looking at kind of the other side of energy, and that’s energy production here in the U.S.. You know, the EPA has taken steps to regulate carbon emissions, to encourage energy utilities to leave coal behind, particularly, and gas, and start to transition to this clean energy future that we we know we need. And I think that is a place where we could see some real changes. The EPA, its ability to even regulate carbon as a pollutant. What are some of the kind of red flags or concerns that you’re seeing right now?
Brett: Yes, certainly I’d think that the Biden-Harris administration power plant rules would would be on the chopping block under a Trump EPA. The question about whether they can regulate carbon or how to regulate GHG emissions is a little bit separate. That’s right now, enshrined in Supreme Court precedent that indeed greenhouse gases are a pollutant that are covered by the Clean Air Act. So that takes a little bit more work if anyone’s going to try to roll that back. But we do expect to see the power plant rules rescinded. Again, it comes back to the economics. Coal is still the most expensive way that we can get energy if you’re not considering nuclear. So I’m not as concerned that coal’s going to stay on line. I think this may be a road bump in in getting the rest of our coal retired. But ultimately, I think the economic factors are going to are going to force it out. And folks are aware of how bad coal is for the communities where it’s burned. And I hope that that ship is fully sailed. We could see more emphasis on methane gas plants as a generation source. Given this, the Biden-Harris rules would have required co-firing with clean hydrogen or capacity factors that would limit the amount of methane that it’s being burned. But, you know, we have other pieces of our government, other other parts of the bureaucracy and in ways that, you know, Americans govern themselves. That includes states. We’ve seen a lot of. New positive action from some states in the last, you know, four, eight years on passing their own clean energy goals. Those are going to stay in place. The utilities operating in those states will still need to meet those requirements. And ultimately, utilities are beholden to their customers. And if if folks can make it clear that they want to be getting their energy from clean sources, hopefully we won’t see too much backtracking in it. Again, it goes back to what we were talking about before. You know, is the U.S. going to seize the opportunity that the clean energy transition presents for the economy, for manufacturing? Or are we going to keep clean to dirty, outdated technology that puts us behind in both the environment and economically.
Amy: I think, you know, people’s minds are in this place around climate change because I there’s been so much talk about from the Trump campaign about what could happen in terms of doing more drilling, more oil, more gas. But there’s a whole different side or other side to the work at Clean Wisconsin, and that’s on the water side. And there hasn’t been so much talk from the Trump administration or the incoming administration about what might happen to water. But I think we’re going to see some of these similar kinds of rollbacks. For instance, as we just got environmental regulations from the EPA to regulate PFAS levels in drinking water for municipalities, and we expect that to go. Evan, what else are you kind of seeing in terms of the risks to our water in the next administration?
Evan: Yeah. And I’ll just start with, you know, with the first one, that’s a big one. EPA did a great job of going through a very thorough process to arrive at the numerical limit that’s allowed for PFAS in drinking water. They set a nice low number that’s representative of the best available science and what’s needed to protect health. The Trump administration, I imagine, will try to pull that, rollback and put out something either that’s way more lenient or they just will repeal at full scale. Relating the previous two, the Biden administration did a rule to classify PFAS as a hazardous substance for purposes of cercla the Superfund rule. So this is for cleaning up sites that have contamination. Most folks think that they’ll revisit that, which is a euphemism for saying that that rule could be deleted as well. So not just PFAS in the drinking water, but PFAS in lands that are contaminated, both of that could go from being regulated to unregulated here pretty quick. There’s also in drinking water, we got to be worried about lead. As always, the Biden Administration did something that public health officials and environmentalists and families have been clamoring for for a long time, which was finally putting out a rule that required water systems to get rid of the lead service lines that contaminate drinking water with lead. And the reason this is so important is because that’s the only permanent solution to this. And we know we know where the lead service lines are. We know we got a lot of them. We know it’s expensive, but we had a mandate to replace them. We have money in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to do that now. And there is a concern that that mandate to replace these lead service lines is another rule that they’re going to want to get rid of in short order, and that that will allow water systems to keep pumping water through lead service lines in perpetuity here to to folks who may not even know that they’re drinking lead contaminated water and their kids are drinking lead contaminated water. So that’s pretty scary and pretty sad that that could be where we’re headed with this. Those are really the big ones. There’s going to be a lot of changes on more little things, like how the Clean Water Act is implemented and it’s going to put the onus on the states where they have discretion to do the best they can with their state authority. And so in Wisconsin here, that’s what’s really important to know is the feds don’t regulate groundwater. We regulate that under a standalone state law. And so we can still push ahead with state law protections on things like PFAS and nitrates and these other things. We don’t need to worry about EPA being absent on the job on that. Another thing that’s a water related thing that’s really important is the use of harmful pesticides that get into our water supply. So we’ve been pushing a lot of groups have been pushing for tighter regulation and taking another look at some of these products that have been on the market or new proposed market ones that have impacts on not just human health, but also on pollinators like these nasty neonicotinoid pesticides. They want to basically create a fox guarding the henhouse situation where the industry gets even more of a blank check to do whatever it wants and set the burden for showing health impacts so high that it basically is never met. And all these chemicals get to be used and in perpetuity. It’s a complete free pass to use these chemicals even as the science builds that they’re harmful. So that’s the kind of thing, you know, that’s really scary to expect to see and in the next four years here.
Amy: But I think there’s another layer of scary. Evan, you had the great privilege of reading Project 2025 to see really what’s in there that’s much more concerning, I think kind of a changing the way our government works and some of the things we’re talking about. You know, we rely on science from these agencies, from the EPA, from the FDA, from the Department of Health and Human Services, real, unbiased science that comes from real researchers at these agencies. What is the goal from what you can tell in Project 2025? With respect. The way our long standing government agencies work.
Evan: Yeah, I mean, I’ll start by saying we of course have to wait to see what actually happens. I’ll note that the Project 2025 section on the EPA was written by someone who served in the last Trump administration in the EPA as the chief of staff, and it’s been reported, at least to be on the shortlist to be an administrator in EPA. So this isn’t some random conservative person at a think tank that they are trying to distance themselves from. This is an insider to the administration and includes a long list of things which, when you read them, they don’t sound so bad or maybe they sound good even. But you have to put on your George Orwell 1984 glasses, you know, when you read the stuff because it’s all doublespeak and it’s all often inverted of what they really mean. So they’ll often talk about things like, like I was talking about with pesticide regulation, we’re going to have, you know, unbiased science. What they mean by that is science from the people who make the chemicals. They don’t want neutral and third party scientists weighing in with peer reviewed studies because they view that as biased, because scientists, they believe, have a liberal agenda. So you have to look at it through the lens if that’s what they’re talking about. It is really an effort to privilege loyalty to the president and the president’s agenda over expertise, experience and scientific ability and education. This takes a bunch of different forms. They want to get managers in there as opposed to scientists. They want to just completely cut funding for all kinds of research and science programs, if not eliminate them altogether. They want to completely get rid of certain programs. Project 2025 calls for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, or NOAA, which does a lot of our climate change research to be broken up into pieces and vastly reduced into nothing. So they, you know, this is and they want to appoint people to run these agencies that are all climate deniers. I mean, so what you can expect to see is basically the federal government either being silent as to these issues or saying stuff that’s actually just not in keeping with the scientific consensus on these issues, which is to me, really scary because we’re in a place where people won’t be able to listen to the federal government and think what they’re saying and these things that we have previously treated as nonpartizan just questions of science and know whether or not they can trust them. There’s even stuff that I would describe as being even kind of scarier and more pernicious that is harder for folks out in the public to know what’s going on. So there’s this conversation around can they alter the civil service protections for these employees so that they can either be fired and replaced with political appointees again, who are people who are pre-selected to be in keeping with the Trump agenda or leave them there, but keep them in constant fear of retaliation for doing their jobs and telling the truth. We saw last Trump administration that a lot of people they attempted to punish and some of these civil service protections prevented it from happening. It’s not clear that they can do this legally, but we heard Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, say, “Well, we’ll do it. And if the court says it’s illegal, we’ll tell them, well, enforce your order. We’ll just lay these people off anyway.” So the fullest scariest version of this really is a purge, frankly, of objective science from these agencies and a replacement with party loyalists, which is that’s the worst case scenario. I hope that doesn’t happen. I hope that that’s posturing that they’re making in this document that isn’t going to come to fruition. But the effect of this would be a complete grinding to a halt of the proper functioning. These agencies, which, by the way, wouldn’t just be, we’re no longer getting good, accurate climate science would be permits aren’t being processed very quickly. All the services that these agencies provide would grind to a halt because frankly, you’d be replace incompetence with incompetence.
Amy: Yeah. So that’s a you know, it’s something that’s hard for for even me to figure out what we can do, right? Like that’s what we’re basically doing right now at Clean Wisconsin. We’re kind of figuring out, okay, what are the pieces that we can take on right now? Or what are we seeing happening? How are we going to be nimble enough to to keep protections in place? And so, Brett, I think, you know, as someone who works on climate issues day in and day out, even to the point where, you know, you’re working on things that most people aren’t even thinking about, like, you know, gas generators and how do we how do we make this clean energy transition and get off of fossil fuels, Line 5. You work on it all the time. What are you seeing as the most important work that’s right in front of you right now.
Brett: That’s a tough one. Clearly, there will be some defense of environmental protections to play. We’ve seen it before, not just the previous Trump administration, but you can go back at least a few administrations before that where there’s kind of this ping pong of regulatory priorities or positions that some of our agencies are taking. So it’s not unchartered territory, but certainly, you know, some of our resources are going to have to be put into that defensive work protecting progress that we’ve made, especially under the Biden-Harris administration. Things you know, that are in statute or go back further than that can be a little bit trickier for a new administration to undo. But I think there’s so much work to be done in so many different venues. There’s state public utility commissions, our PSC here in Wisconsin, there’s state DNRs, state wildlife agencies, state agricultural agencies and city governments. You know, all of the different ways that the government provides for the citizenry, they’re at every level responsive to their constituents. So I think if we start to see a lot of these rollbacks that we’re expecting, it’s incumbent on folks to speak up regardless of their, you know, political affiliations. If you care about the environment, if you care about the United States being a leader on climate action, make it be known to everyone you know, who who is answerable to you as a constituent. A lot of the work will continue. We do a lot of work at the state level at Clean Wisconsin, and there’s a ton of work to do there. There has been the last four years and there will continue to be so. I don’t know, Evan and I won’t be bored. I can tell you that much.
Amy: Thank goodness. We were talking about, the three of us before we started recording, when you looked at the polls leading up to the election, climate change as an issue was low. What are your top issues? Well, climate change was down there, I think it was well out of the top ten, probably out of the top 15. And I often think that people don’t tend to really care about the environment until it kind of slaps them in the face, until they have pollution in their backyard, until they’re breathing in, you know, smokestack pollution or there’s they’ve got PFAS in their water or, you know, they got flooding or fires from climate change. That’s when they start to care at that high level. So I guess, what would you tell people who, you know, presumably this audience does already care at a high level, what would you tell them to kind of look out for or be prepared to do here in the next, I’d say six months to a year, if not longer, as we see some of these things happening?
Brett: I think it also helps if folks can talk to people in their life. If you’re listening to this, you probably consider climate change an important issue that needs to be addressed. As you said, Amy, we we saw it pretty far down on the list and exit polling. So help people understand. Talk to them about ways that it impacts their health, their natural places that they care about their livelihoods. If we can raise the priority of protecting the environment and addressing climate change with the electorate, then next time around, you know, maybe some of these things that we’re really worried about happening would would be off the table.
Amy: So I think, you know, we were talking about when people are fearful, are worried, are angry, they have a tendency just to shut down to, you know, check out of the political system of the fight, of the struggle to protect the environment, just to, you know, kind of wallow in the in the sad feelings and then try to shut it all out. What’s your reaction to that? Or what do you want to say to those folks who might be listening?
Evan: Well, first of all, it’s understandable. I mean, I can remember in 2016, when Trump was elected, the first time I was living in Chicago at the time, and I had just finished up a fellowship at the Natural Resources Defense Council where I’d been doing environmental work. And I was really sad and I was kind of frozen for a few days into inaction. And I didn’t really have that reaction this time. And I’ve been trying to think about why and what’s changed in my life and how I view the world and just where I’m at. And I think part of it is I’m older now and I have experience working and I’ve had kids and I have two small kids at home. And anybody with small kids knows that it doesn’t matter if you’re sick or sad, you got to talk them into putting their shoes on, to go to school in the morning. And I’m done now being sad or angry. It’s always frustrating to have to deal with these lies and this nonsense, but I want people to understand that Clean Wisconsin, and everybody here, is ready. We’ve been thinking about this. We have plans that we’re putting into place to try to get as many wins as we possibly can over the next four years. Overcoming these challenges. Being strategic and doing whatever it takes for as long as it takes to win in this difficult environment. And part of the reason is because we know that there are so many people out there that depend on us. There’s so many places and people and things that we love that need us to prevail. When as a lawyer, I get to go into court. And make my appearances in front of the judge. It is one of the great privileges of my life that I get to say. Your Honor, my name is Evan Feinauer, and I’m here on behalf of Clean Wisconsin and our members across the state because I feel the power and the enthusiasm and the shared values that all of our members have and everybody who needs us to be doing this work. And it’s bouying and it’s motivating, and we’re going to need that for one another over the next four years. But know that Clean Wisconsin is going to be your voice and be your champion, and we’re going to do whatever it takes, no matter the situation we find ourselves in. We’re not giving up or as focused as ever. We need your help. But we’re never going to stop fighting.
Amy: I will say I do feel better after being here in the office around all of you. Understanding that fighting for what we all know is important takes a very incremental piece by piece, a smart approach that that we’re all kind of digging into right now, what’s next. So I appreciate your work and for talking with me today. Brett, Evan, thank you so much.
Brett: Thanks, Amy.
Evan: Thank you.
Amy: To find out more about the environmental issues you care about, log on to our website, cleanwisconsin.org. I’m Amy Barrilleaux and you’ve been listening to State of Change powered by Clean Wisconsin.
