Last Sunday, an influential British conservative sent up a red flag in the Times of London. Sensing a sharp turn in the policy direction of new Prime Minister Liz Truss, William Hague wrote “conservatives must always be environmentalists.”
In other words, the British Right is in deep trouble if it follows the path of America’s Right.
But — from Teddy Roosevelt to Richard Milhous Nixon to Ronald Reagan — it wasn’t always that way here.
So, in this sharply divided country, how do we get back to a time when millions of us don’t equate clean air with bad taste? Maybe a tour of more than a century of Republican history could guide us.
Even a few (but not all) GOP leaders with overall lousy environmental track records make the list.
The Lacey Act
Congress passed, and President William McKinley signed, the Lacey Act – the distant forerunner of the U.S. Endangered Species Act — in 1900.
The issue of the day was the plumage coveted for ladies’ hats. Lacey set sharp limits on the taking of feathery birds, and the importation of birds killed for their plumage.
"What nature once so bountifully supplied"
Teddy Roosevelt was the eco superstar of his day, ushering in the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service and more. In 1907, he issued “A Message to the Schoolchildren of the United States," saying, in part, "We of an older generation can get along with what we have, though with growing hardship; but in your full manhood and womanhood you will want what nature once so bountifully supplied and man so thoughtlessly destroyed; and because of that want you will reproach us, not for what we have used, but for what we have wasted.”
From the EPA to the Clean Air Act
The president who once said that environmentalists wanted to “live like a bunch of damn animals,” had an impressive string of environmental achievements. President Richard Nixon signed laws that created the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, limited pesticide use and required environmental impact statements for development projects.
He also signed the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act but vetoed the Clean Water Act as too expensive. Congress overrode that veto.
Montreal Protocol
In 1987, the world’s nations gathered in Montreal to hammer out a solution to a recently discovered growing menace: the ozone hole over Antarctica, caused by ozone-depleting chemicals. The Montreal Protocol was supported by President Ronald Reagan (as well as fellow conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher). The protocol has reversed ozone damage as one of the few truly effective global environmental treaties.
Reagan’s successor was his Vice President, George H. W. Bush. As president, he signed into law powerful improvements to Nixon’s Clean Air Act.
Then came Newt
In the 1970’s, an ambitious professor at West Georgia College raised some hell as advisor to the campus Sierra Club. Elected to Congress on his second try, Newton Leroy Gingrich learned there was no path to House Speaker for a GOP treehugger.
The 1994 Newt Gingrich rode his anti-regulatory Contract With America to the Speaker’s chair and a couple of failed presidential bids.
Even W.
George W. Bush, considered by environmentalists to have an awful track record, scored green points by backing several sprawling marine protected areas in the Pacific.
Then came the Tea Party, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that surrendered the last shred of integrity in campaign financing, and the Trump era. Climate denial became a Merit Badge for rising Republicans. Climate concern vanished from the speeches and deeds of Romney, McCain, Christie, Jindal, and a dozen more. Even Sarah Palin, in her brief turn as Alaska governor, created a “Climate Sub-Cabinet” to help prepare her vulnerable state. The sub-cabinet never met, and it quietly disappeared after Palin resigned.
At least mild concern from Republican leadership is long overdue. Let’s hope it’s science, reason and integrity that bring it back, and not the next wave of droughts, wildfires, or Hurricane Ians.
Peter Dykstra is our weekend editor and columnist and can be reached at pdykstra@ehn.org or @pdykstra.
His views do not necessarily represent those of Environmental Health News, The Daily Climate, or publisher Environmental Health Sciences.
The plastics industry has deployed influencers, misleading messaging and covert tactics to push back against environmental criticism while nations negotiate a global treaty to address plastic pollution.
A leaked trove of documents reveals that the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) has funded a covert campaign using influencers and social media to counter environmental concerns about plastics.
Despite claims of PET plastics being a "zero-waste system," less than 30% of PET bottles are recycled in the U.S., with the remainder contributing to microplastic pollution and environmental harm.
The campaign’s lack of transparency, including undisclosed sponsorships and misleading messaging, has drawn scrutiny, particularly as global leaders meet to negotiate a treaty aimed at curbing plastic production.
Key quote:
“The campaign’s goal is for this content to be authentic and from the creators’ viewpoints.”
— Lindsay J.K. Nichols, NAPCOR Communications Director
Why this matters:
While international negotiators look for solutions, the industry is doubling down on spin. The playbook is clear — shift the blame onto consumers and push rosy recycling myths — all while sidestepping accountability for the millions of tons of plastic pollution spiraling out of control.
The incoming administration is expected to weaken federal workplace safety and public health regulations, leaving states and local governments to fill the gaps in protecting workers from hazards like toxins and extreme heat.
Federal rollbacks in workplace safety standards, reminiscent of the Reagan era, may halt progress on key protections like extreme heat standards.
States and localities have historically led the charge in advancing public health policies, influencing national regulations through grassroots action.
As some states expand protections, others, like Texas and Florida, have passed laws to block stronger local worker protections, illustrating a growing political divide.
Key quote:
"Are we going to be the Philadelphia of 1918, or the St. Louis?"
— David Michaels, professor of environmental & occupational health at George Washington University and former OSHA administrator
Why this matters:
For workers, the stakes are both environmental and personal. Rising temperatures, more intense wildfires and the ever-present threat of workplace accidents mean safety on the job is more critical than ever. Whether your state steps up or stands down could mean the difference between resilience and crisis.
The incoming Trump administration could decrease the viability of the nascent U.S. hydrogen economy with changes in clean energy funding, trade, climate and environmental policies, according to legal and industry experts.
The Biden administration made a big bet on hydrogen — with seven proposed, federally funded hydrogen hub networks, an initiative born from the administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The hubs are all still in early phases of development, however, the Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated $7 billion in federal funding for the hubs, which support the Biden administration's objective of reaching net-zero carbon emissions nationwide by 2050 and achieving a 100% “clean” electrical grid by 2035.
The projects, which will use both renewable and fossil fuel energy to create hydrogen, have already faced criticism from community members and advocacy groups who say details of the projects remain hazy, public input is being planned after industry partners have already received millions of dollars in public funding, and communities don’t have agency in the decision-making.
While much remains uncertain with the upcoming Trump presidency, experts said it’s unlikely the projects would be abandoned entirely. However, the initiative could be harder to fund, less focused on slowing climate change – which could impact production sales to places with stricter environmental rules, like the EU – and deepen the lack of community engagement many advocates have denounced.
“I think there will be a lot of pressure from the oil and gas industry on the Trump administration to basically keep the hydrogen provisions but to make them more lenient and friendly toward fossil fuel interests,” Matt Lifson, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law, told EHN.
Policy shifts that could impact the the hydrogen hubs
The seven proposed, federally funded networks of hydrogen hub infrastructure announced a year ago are an initiative born from the Biden administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.Credit: OCED
The DOE has already provided some funding for five of the seven hubs — $131.7 million, with the Gulf Coast and Midwest hubs receiving funds most recently on November 20 — but much of the $7 billion earmarked for the hubs is set to be distributed over the next decade.
Any funding that hasn’t been distributed when Trump takes office could be reallocated through federal budget reconciliation, according to legal and policy experts. Reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered and the process has been used to pass at least 22 bills since the process was established in 1974, including the Biden administration's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
“A lot will depend on the contracts the federal government has already signed with the hydrogen hub developers,” said Lifson. “Even if Congress changes the law, there could potentially still be a contractual claim the hubs could pursue for the money.”
Trump’s policies on clean energy tax credits could also impact the hubs. Trump has repeatedly called into question the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which doled out clean energy tax credits over the past four years. Trump’s pick to head the Treasury Department Scott Bessent recently called the IRA a “doomsday machine for the budget.”
If Trump cuts tax credits for the industry, that means he would most likely get rid of a 10-year tax credit for hydrogen production established by the IRA but not yet finalized. The tax cut “has been a cornerstone for accelerating clean energy investments and job creation,” Katie Ellet, chief executive officer of ETCH, a decarbonization and hydrogen production company, and previous president of hydrogen energy and mobility for Air Liquide North America, told EHN.
“While the hydrogen market’s transition was underway before the IRA … the legislation significantly amplified this momentum,” Ellet added.
Before the recent election, the Biden administration promised to finalize the clean hydrogen production tax credit by the end of the year. However, the rule could be overturned under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn final rules issued by federal agencies within 60 days. If that happened, it would also bar “substantially similar legislation” from being passed in the future, so it’s unclear if the Biden administration will finalize the rule.
As currently written, the tax credits incentivize lower levels of carbon emissions in hydrogen production.
“Whether the Biden administration finalizes the rule and it gets repealed, or whether they don’t finalize it and the Trump administration proposes a new rule, it’s not hard to imagine the Trump administration issuing a final rule that’s extremely lenient toward emissions accounting,” Lifson said. “That would be very bad from a climate perspective.”
Trump’s final decision on the hydrogen energy tax credits will also influence markets. The EU is currently finalizing policies that will prevent it from buying hydrogen produced using fossil fuels rather than clean energy sources, and if the tax credit incentivizes the creation of hydrogen using fossil fuels, the U.S. could end up with a surplus.
“While the hydrogen market’s transition was underway before the IRA … the legislation significantly amplified this momentum." - Katie Ellet, ETCH
In addition to the $7 billion in federal funds that have been set aside for the hubs, an estimated $40 billion in private investments will also be needed to complete the projects. If Trump rolls back climate policies, as he did during his last presidency and has vowed to do again, it could lessen demand for hydrogen energy in the U.S., which could scare away the necessary private investors.
“Federal policy plays a critical role in shaping the pace and scale of clean energy adoption,” said Ellet, who oversaw $1 billion in investments across the U.S. for Air Liquide, a partner in six of the seven hubs. “That said, global market dynamics and established corporate commitments continue to offer a solid foundation for sustained private sector investment in clean energy.”
Environmental justice deprioritized
Environmental justice frameworks that aren’t part of legal statutes are some of the easiest targets for elimination.
A prime example is the Biden Administration’s Justice40 initiative, a federal mandate to allocate 40% of federal investments in climate, clean energy, housing, among others, to “disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.”
The federal hydrogen hub networks are one of the first major tests of the Justice40 initiative, but even in pre-development phases advocates and communities shared grievances around community engagement and transparency.
Most recently, advocates were notified just hours before the DOE announcement of phase one funding for the Midwest Hydrogen Hub, according to the advocacy group Just Transition Northwest Indiana. “We were literally in a meeting with DOE and the [Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations] minutes before the announcement was made, with no mention that the award was being dropped today,” the group said in a press release. “We are justifiably stunned to see it suddenly flash over our news feed. We are fed up with the continuous lack of transparency.”
Many worry that these issues will worsen under the Trump administration. Project 2025 — a policy blueprint that Trump distanced himself from on the campaign trail but that now seems central to his Cabinet picks and plans — explicitly calls into question whether the government should be addressing the roles of race and income in pollution exposure, and aims to dismantle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“A lot of the alarming practices we were seeing under Biden are likely to continue under Trump, if not worsen,” Batoul Al-Sadi, a senior associate at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told EHN.
Margaret Cook, deputy director of climate equity and resilience at the Houston Advanced Research Center, said the Center’s position as one the hub’s community engagement partners was finalized last week with phase one awards.
“The contract signed recently with DOE for the first phase includes community engagement,” Cook said. “I can’t speculate about how a new administration would affect the project. Updates to the Justice40 Assessment and Implementation Strategy will be made at the end of each phase, and relevant information will be shared for community input.”
While the future of the hubs' community engagement and emissions reduction rollout remains unclear until Trump begins his term, out of the four hubs EHN was able to reach none stated concerns for the continuation of their projects.
Trump has also vowed to fast-track industrial development permitting, which could hamper community engagement but help projects get developed faster.
“The incoming administration has clear goals around energy independence, job creation and boosting domestic production … all priorities deeply embedded in the hydrogen hubs,” Ellet said. “I anticipate that there will be continued support for the hubs.”
It’s possible that companies and investors might plan for the longer term by taking climate needs and importance of community buy-in into account even if they aren’t required to by law. During the last Trump presidency, for example, large auto manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Ford, Volkswagen and BMW announced they wouldn’t adhere to the Trump administration’s rollback of emission standards and would instead continue to comply with the previous standards enacted by the Obama administration to reduce planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions.
“We know there’s bipartisan support and that both blue and red states have benefitted from clean energy investments,” Lauren Piette, a senior associate attorney for EarthJustice’s clean energy program, told EHN. “I worry about what the next administration could do with those investments, but my hope is there’s a groundswell of support from members of the public, legislators and policymakers who understand our future runs on clean energy and we need to get there sooner rather than later.”
COP29 nations agreed to provide $300 billion annually for climate action in developing countries by 2035, far below the $1 trillion experts say is required.
Most of the funding will likely be loans, exacerbating debt burdens in nations already spending more on debt payments than on education or health.
Advocates and leaders call for debt forgiveness to enable climate resilience, citing precedents like the IMF’s 1990s debt-relief initiatives.
Key quote:
“They’re really finding ways to avoid their responsibility.”
— Nafkote Dabi, climate-change-policy lead at Oxfam International
Why this matters:
Developing nations disproportionately suffer from climate impacts despite contributing little to global emissions. Mounting debt limits their ability to invest in climate solutions, risking further economic collapse and global insecurity. Addressing this requires bold, coordinated financial reforms.
A decade after the Paris Agreement, fossil fuel expansion and weak enforcement of climate goals have kept global warming on course to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius, exposing the limits of current strategies.
The Paris Agreement’s goal to limit warming to 1.5°C lacked binding rules, enabling continued fossil fuel reliance.
The ideology of “overshoot” suggests exceeding climate targets temporarily, relying on future technology to reverse damage, despite uncertainties.
Fossil fuel projects persist due to economic reliance, with investments locking in decades of emissions and resistance to rapid renewable transitions.
Key quote:
“Overshoot is here not a fate passively acquiesced to. It is an actively championed programme for how to deal with the rush into catastrophe: let it continue for the time being, and then we shall sort things out.”
— Wim Carton and Andreas Malm, authors of Overshoot
Why this matters:
Rising global temperatures heighten risks like extreme weather, droughts, and food insecurity. Reliance on speculative technologies like carbon capture to fix overshoot delays meaningful action and risks making future mitigation efforts too late or insufficient.
Delegates from more than 170 nations are meeting in South Korea to negotiate a treaty to reduce plastic pollution, but debates over production caps and enforcement could derail the effort.
A United Nations-led meeting in Busan aims to finalize a treaty addressing the plastic pollution crisis, which could nearly triple by 2060 without intervention.
The U.S. supports voluntary measures but resists binding caps on plastic production, despite the EPA highlighting severe health risks linked to plastic exposure.
Some nations, including oil-heavy producers, oppose strict limits, while scientists and advocates call for reductions in production and hazardous chemicals in plastics.
Key quote:
“ ... the challenge with plastic isn’t that we don’t know how to live without it — for most uses, we do, or we used to — it’s that the oil, gas, and petrochemical industry has become so powerful that it won’t let us implement the necessary change.”
— Neil Tangri, a researcher with the University of California, Berkeley
Why this matters:
Plastic pollution threatens ecosystems and human health worldwide, with microplastics found in food, water, and even human organs. Without urgent action to limit production, the crisis will exacerbate environmental damage and climate change.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom pledged to revive state-level subsidies for electric vehicle purchases if the incoming Trump administration removes the federal EV tax credit, which provides up to $7,500 per vehicle.
President-elect Trump is expected to seek repeal of the federal EV tax credit as part of a broader rollback of Biden-era climate policies.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a plan to reinstate state-level EV rebates, potentially funded by cap-and-trade revenue, to maintain affordability.
Analysts warn repealing the credit could reduce new EV registrations by 27%, although long-term adoption is expected to rise due to technological advances and lower running costs.
Key quote:
“We’re not turning back on a clean transportation future — we’re going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don’t pollute.”
— Gavin Newsom, California governor
Why this matters:
Transportation generates the largest share of U.S. carbon emissions, and policies encouraging EV adoption are key to reducing climate impacts. Removing federal subsidies could slow progress on clean energy goals and disproportionately affect states leading in EV adoption, like California.
A massive push for hydrogen energy is one of the first test cases of new federal environmental justice initiatives. Communities and advocates so far give the feds a failing grade.
The seven proposed, federally funded networks of hydrogen hub infrastructure announced a year ago are an initiative born from the Biden administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.Credit: OCED 
