On Tuesday, American voters will get the chance to end Donald Trump’s planetary death drive. It’s no exaggeration to say that the Trump administration will go down as one of the most environmentally destructive in modern American history. To illustrate the existential stakes of this election, here’s just a partial summary of Trump’s assault on the climate over the past four years.
Since 2016, the US president has ditched, sidelined or diluted at least 100 Obama-era climate reforms. He has opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to fresh drilling initiatives. He has licensed new oil pipeline developments and liquified natural gas terminals. He has gutted the National Environmental Protection Act, which forced the federal government to assess the ecological impact of its policies. He has expanded tax breaks for coal plants, championed fracking, and hobbled the American renewables market. He has muzzled climate scientists and blamed California’s historic wildfires on bad forest management. He has packed the US court system with conservative judges who are instinctively sympathetic to extractive industries. And, of course, he has withdrawn America from the Paris Climate Accords, which aim to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius by the middle of this century – just enough, in other words, to stave-off something approaching total climactic disaster.
The rapid ascent of renewables in recent years has eaten into an ever bigger share of the global energy market.
Even back in 2018, think tanks were projecting oil price declines, increased competition, and stranded assets.
Last year, following an exhaustive 22-month investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election had been “sweeping and systematic.” In her new book, Blowout, the American journalist and MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow argues that oil was the key motivating factor behind Moscow’s 2016 strategy.
According to Maddow, Vladimir Putin wanted someone in the White House who would lift the economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the West following the Kremlin’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Those sanctions scuppered a deal agreed two years earlier between Putin and the US energy giant ExxonMobil that would’ve opened up Russia’s Arctic territories to new oil and gas exploration projects. Hillary Clinton, a long-time foreign policy hawk and critic of the Putin regime, was never going to reverse Washington’s adversarial stance towards Russia; Donald Trump, a combustive reality TV star with a notorious weak spot for flattery, just might.
On Wednesday, Paul Wheelhouse, the Scottish government minister for Energy, Connectivity, and the Islands, suggested that firms operating in the North Sea should start using wind turbines to power their oil and gas platforms.
This initiative is already being trialled in Norway by the country’s state-owned petroleum company, Equinor, Wheelhouse said, and could help the UK oil industry realize its “low carbon ambitions” ahead of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow later this year.
Edinburgh, Scotland—Five years ago, when Scotland voted in a landmark referendum to remain part of the United Kingdom, the issue of North Sea oil—who owns it and how it should be administered—was a key feature of the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) independence platform. If—as seems increasingly likely in the context of Britain’s ongoing scramble over Brexit—Scots vote again on the future of their union with England, the heavy winds and tides that buffet Scotland’s coastline will play an equally critical role in the next campaign.
By some estimates, Scotland has 25 percent of Europe’s total offshore wind and tidal resources and around 60 percent of the U.K.’s onshore wind capacity. Renewable energy is worth nearly 6 billion pounds (about $7.5 billion) annually to the Scottish economy—and green electricity exports are rising every year. But in the face of an accelerating global ecological crisis, both advocates and opponents of Scottish independence think the country can go further in embracing alternative energy sources—they simply disagree on whether Scottish independence would help or hurt that goal.