April 26 is Oxford Day in Talbot County, a celebration of one of the most historic and scenic small towns in the United States. I will be there, but how many more Oxford Days will there be? Oxford is subject to flooding every year, and it is getting worse.
If the Trump administration has its way, don’t bet on Oxford’s future—or anywhere else on the Eastern Shore. The President is surrendering in the war on climate change. He is changing America’s side in this existential fight—his Environmental Protection Agency administrator, former Congressman Lee Zeldin, is launching an all-out assault on the regulations targeting climate change.
Said Zeldin: “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.” The “more” is to increase corporate profits for his supporters, even at the cost of places like the Eastern Shore.
Zeldin will kill the “climate change religion” by “reconsidering” a long list of existing EPA regulations. The list is a long one, but worth reading:
- Reconsideration of regulations on power plants (Clean Power Plan 2.0)
- Reconsideration of regulations throttling the oil and gas industry (OOOO b/c)
- Reconsideration of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that improperly targeted coal-fired power plants (MATS)
- Reconsideration of mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that imposed significant costs on the American energy supply (GHG Reporting Program)
- Reconsideration of limitations, guidelines, and standards (ELG) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry to ensure low-cost electricity while protecting water resources (Steam Electric ELG)
- Reconsideration of wastewater regulations for coal power plants to help unleash American energy (Oil and Gas ELG)
- Reconsideration of Biden-Harris Administration Risk Management Program rule that made America’s oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities less safe (Risk Management Program Rule)
- Reconsideration of light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicle regulations that provided the foundation for the Biden-Harris electric vehicle mandate (Car GHG Rules)
- Reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding and regulations and actions that rely on that Finding (Endangerment Finding)
- Reconsideration of technology transition rule that forces companies to use certain technologies that increased costs on food at grocery stores and semiconductor manufacturing (Technology Transition Rule)
- Reconsideration of Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards that shut down opportunities for American manufacturing and small businesses (PM 2.5 NAAQS)
- Reconsideration of multiple National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for American energy and manufacturing sectors (NESHAPs)
- Restructuring the Regional Haze Program that threatened the supply of affordable energy for American families (Regional Haze)
- Overhauling Biden-Harris Administration’s “Social Cost of Carbon”
- Redirecting enforcement resources to EPA’s core mission to relieve the economy of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens that drive up costs for American consumers (Enforcement Discretion)
- Terminating Biden’s Environmental Justice and DEI arms of the agency (EJ/DEI)
- Ending so-called “Good Neighbor Plan” which the Biden-Harris Administration used to expand federal rules to more states and sectors beyond the program’s traditional focus and led to the rejection of nearly all State Implementation Plans
- Working with states and tribes to resolve massive backlog with State Implementation Plans and Tribal Implementation Plans that the Biden-Harris Administration refused to resolve (SIPs/TIPs)
- Reconsideration of exceptional events rulemaking to work with states to prioritize the allowance of prescribed fires within State and Tribal Implementation Plans (Exceptional Events)
- Reconstituting Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (SAB/CASAC)
- Prioritizing coal ash program to expedite state permit reviews and update coal ash regulations (CCR Rule)
Anyone remotely concerned about the increase in hurricanes, fires, tornados, and, of course, flooding should be worried about the wholesale “reconsideration” of dozens of regulations intended to slow down climate change.
The Trump administration could have announced a review of select regulations with the goal of making them more efficient. The President and his all-too-eager EPA director chose a different path—they want to “drive a dagger through the heart” of efforts to respond to climate change.
The Eastern Shore should be worried.
I wonder whether Andy Harris will support Trump’s effort to emasculate the EPA. I bet you know the answer.
J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s List on Medium and Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.
Eva M. Smorzaniuk MD says
Adding to Oxfords woes is the fact that the two NOAA scientists recently fired from the Cooperative Lab in Oxford represented 2/3 of the team collecting and analyzing tide data that will help Oxford predict and respond to flooding events. Flooding due to storm water and tidal surges has become a critical and costly problem in Oxford, and will likely worsen with these administrative actions. I am not hopeful that congressman Harris will do anything to help his constituents on this or any other problem as he has clearly stated his unwavering support for Trump.
HR Worthington says
Seems like the most reasonable thing to do in response to such chicanery would be to go out and buy a Telsa to reduce your carbon footprint. -HR
Reed Fawell 3 says
This is demagoguery.
Eva M. Smorzaniuk MD says
Excellent point! Agree that this is exactly what the Trump administration and DOGE are doing.
John Dean says
Thank you for reading my piece. When EPA Administrator Zeldin said, “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more,” I thought the same thing.
Wilson Dean says
By laying out the various legislation and programs to be attacked , this article makes it clear that this effort by the Trump Administration will cause immeasurable harm to our Chesapeake Bay, our health, and the well-being of our children and grandchildren. Is this what we on the Eastern Shore want?
Let’s be clear—-climate change is real. Depending on how questionnaires are worded, 80-99% of climate scientists subscribe to the idea that it is an extreme danger to our planet and its inhabitants. Every nation on the earth has recognized this problem and only a few autocratic countries (such as Russia and Saudi Arabia are pushing against programs to deal with it). The Trump attack on climate change is a thinly veiled effort to reward the oil and gas industries that gave over $1 billion to his campaign (even more than Musk!). He certainly isn’t thinking about the quality of life for Americans, nor is he making it more affordable as he claims for us when the ravages of climate change will require a ten-fold investment to deal with its damage than the cost of our taking action to confront it.
Finally, the claim that whatever we do will be dwarfed by China because it emits more greenhouse gases that we do is a pitiful argument when one considers three factors. First, the US population is less than 25% of China’s; on a per capita basis, China’s emissions are only a fraction of ours. Second, as many greenhouse gases last longer than 100 years, the total emissions of the US that are now causing climate change far exceeds that of China. Finally, China is in fact taking steps to deal with climate change (although they would do better were the US to continue to push it) and, more importantly, is rapidly filling in the vacuum left by the Trump Administration in taking world leadership on the issue. In America’s absence this could lead to the world enacting a carbon tax on the US for failure to deal with the issue.
In the end, climate change can be dealt with using programs supported by both Democrats (e.g., renewables) and Republicans (e.g., carbon capture). Trump’s plan is to ignore it and leave it to the next generation to solve it (and curse us all in the process).
John Dean says
Thank you for an excellent comment–As always, excellent points.
Here is a news clip I read this morning:
Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach 800,000 Year High.
Last year was the hottest year on record, the top 10 hottest years were all in the past decade and planet-heating carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at an 800,000 year high, the World Meterorological Organization’s annual State of the Climnate report said on Wednesday.
The report laid bare all the markings of an increasingly warming world with oceans at record temperatures, sea levels rising, and glaciers retreating at record speed. It attributed the heating primarily to human activity–such as the burning of coal, oil and gas–and in a smaller part to the naturally occurring El Nino weather phenomenon.
“Our planet is issuing more distress signals,” said United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
Craig Michaels says
JE. What a wonderful rant about green power, I’m proud of you. Our electricity bills have more than doubled due to green energy. I guess you have inherited enough wealth that it doesn’t matter to you. The rest of us have to live on a budget. There is such a thing as clean coal energy. Wes Moore is bankrupting MD with this and people like you defend it. Great job trying to make it sound like it makes sense. Thanks
John Dean says
Thanks for reading the article. Let me politely suggest that there may have been a better way to express disagreement with my column.
Eric Ploeg says
Mr. Wilson Dean, Suggesting the continual flooding in Oxford will get worse because of the Trump administration? C’mon man, did you really think Kamala would have made a difference…….. beyond providing more funding of course?
I’m sure we all want a cleaner Bay. Every household in the Bay watershed pays a mandatory $5 Bay Restoration Fee EVERY month, year after year after year. Shouldn’t this immense perpetually fueled fund be making a difference? I pay it, you pay it but haven’t you ever wondered where and how these funds are spent? I have.
As for climate change, no one can argue that mankind hasn’t influenced the environment on earth. We all agree that the more everyone and every country can do to improve our environment is good for all mankind. But also consider the fact that the climate, particularly the temperature on earth has cycled for millions of year. https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/images/1-3-temp-CO2.gif
I believe the claim that the the US out-pollutes China (the rest of the world?) isn’t accurate. China and India hold over 35% of the world’s population and by my fair guesstimate, with their population and continual industrial growth they contribute upwards of 50% of the world’s pollution. China is now the world’s leading auto producer with 32% of the overall market, 3X more than the US.
Despite a review of clean energy agenda, causing a hiccup for the enormous, customary funding, the US will continue to make progress to address a healthier environment. There are thousands of ongoing environmental “nonprofits” that might even filter down a few dollars towards this cause as well. I doubt 4 years of Trump will make the flooding any worse than its been in Oxford.
HR Worthington says
Sir, a few more things for you to consider. As it turns out, Earth’s atmosphere is about 5.1 *million* gigatons. Humans produce approximately 40 gigatons per year of CO2. (This figure includes the hot air often blown about in this forum.) The rest of nature produces approximately 800 gigatons of CO2 per year. So, to put that in context, that is less than 0.015% of the total atmosphere. Now the science-deniers make two claims to support the climate change hypothesis: 1.) the geochemical carbon cycle is so unreasonably sensitive that it cannot absorb human emissions of CO^2 and 2.) extremely small (in absolute terms) amounts of CO2 increases in the atmosphere create a warming effect due to the effect of radiative forcing. Basically, because of quantum mechanics, CO2 molecules absorb specific wavelengths of infrared light. (Other molecules obviously do as well. Methane absorbs strongly at about 7.7 micrometers. It’s less common than CO2 but traps heat about 25 times more effectively. Plain old water vapor absorbs IR across a wide range of wavelengths, especially around 2.7, 6.3, and beyond 20 micrometers.)
Anyway, enough p-chemistry and quantum mechanics. In the first instance, the claim is just implausible, and it relies on a notion that, for instance, it takes a long time for trees to grow. I don’t have the time to go through it here, but intuitively, life would not exist if the climate were that sensitive to a trace gas in the atmosphere. In the second instance, the problem is that the calculations are extremely simplified and self-fulfilling. Essentially, claimants back-solve for a magic constant, 5.15, in the radiative forcing approximation formula which gets you to a climate increase of 1.1 degrees Celsius or 2.2 W/m2.
Anyhow, all of this could give you a headache. Which is why it simpler to just regurgitate the New York Times, pay higher utility bills and blame Trump. Afterall, thinking for yourself also incrementally increases CO2 as you expend more energy in pursuit of understanding. However, if you were to ask me, the quickest way to end climate change would be to take the public money out of the equation. It would go away overnight. I recall Mr. Gore in his 2006 film emphatically saying that “within a decade” (by 2016), the snows of Kilimanjaro would be gone due to global warming. They are still there. Anecdotal, for sure, but that supports the real science. -HR
Wilson Dean says
Thanks for reading my comments. I would disagree that 4 years of Trump policies won’t make a difference. If you even briefly glace at the list of programs in the article that Trump intends to end, it is difficult to conclude that his policies won’t make pollution higher while those programs made it cleaner.
If you read what I wrote, you will note that I said the US out-polluted China on a per-capita basis, not in overall emissions. China is four times more populated than the US, so of course they would emit more.
Finally, yes, the climate has changed over our planet’s lifetime, but there have been different reasons for that change each time. This time around it is we humans who are driving climate change.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Thank you Craig and Eric for bringing this discussion back into the whelm of reality. To elaborate further on what is going on in the real world, the following YouTube discussion is quite helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9m_6TVJysI
The other books, writings, and talks of Bjorn Lomborg, generally, are also invaluable in exploding the many myths on the subject.
William Keppen says
There will be blood, and it will be on their hands. When it happens, they will find others to blame. It the Trump way.
Craig Phillips says
Ahh, back to the good old days and lower utility bills. Maybe we’ll be able to afford to live here.
Craig Michaels says
Sir,
As a lifelong resident of the shore I remember Oxford and St. Michael’s always flooding at certain tides. As a recent resident you would not know that and would rather blame it on climate change. Sorry your real estate agent didn’t let you know you were buying into property that is near mean water level.