Article 5 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/world-cop30-trump-administration-rolls-back-environmental-rules-rcna245135

Chow, D. (2025, November 24). With the rest of the world at a Climate Summit, trump administration announces major environmental rollbacks. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/world-cop30-trump-administration-rolls-back-environmental-rules-rcna245135 

Abstract: This article details many anti-environmental actions the United States has recently taken under the Trump Administration. It first notes that the United States was absent during the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference and instead began new initiatives to start oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida. This is phrased as an initiative to restore American economic dominance, jobs, and unnecessary regulations/government overreaches. This initiative received immediate bipartisan resistance. In addition, Trump has been proposing new limits to the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. For the Clean Water Act he wants to undo protection regarding pollution, runoff, and classification of “waters of the United States”. Only 19% of the United States wetlands would be protected leaving the country significantly more vulnerable to flooding. For the endangered species act, Trump intends to make removing classified endangered species easier and adding new species more difficult. He’s also intending to add a clause prioritizing “economic impacts” in weighing whether to add or remove to the list. 

Opinion: This article demonstrates the United States continued rejection of modern environmental science underneath the Trump Administration. I believe that our decision to not attend global environmental conventions while simultaneously destroying years of climate efforts is inexcusable and blatantly corrupt. Trump is continuing to prioritize business interests (as mentioned in the “revised” endangered species act) over actually maintaining the health of our nation. While this may not be seen during the course of his presidency, this lack of care towards our environment will haunt many future administrations. I feel that especially with weakening the Clean Water Act the administration has exposed its ugly, capitalistic, and unscrupulous motives. He is willing to sacrifice safe, drinkable water for his citizens in order to prioritize the financial success of his ultra-wealthy proponents. We may feel the effects of these alterations for years while he relaxes in Mar-A-Lago. 

Article 4 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/epa-stop-calculating-deaths-avoided-health-care-savings-air-pollution-rcna254021

NBCUniversal News Group. (2026, January 14). EPA to stop calculating deaths avoided and health care savings from Air Pollution Rules. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/epa-stop-calculating-deaths-avoided-health-care-savings-air-pollution-rcna254021 

Abstract: This article primarily details a new decision by Trump’s EPA to stop quantifying money saved in health care costs avoided and deaths prevented from PM2.5 and ozone. The agency claims their rationale was due to not fully understanding the economical ramifications of PM2.5 and ozone exposure. This is because this system quantifies human life and makes several estimates in order to discern a monetary value that is saved. However, this decision came recently after Trump’s administration attempted to dismantle tough standards for fatal soot pollution. This allows significantly more nitrogen oxide to be released which causes fatal heart and lung disease. The elimination of this toxic substance is similarly not counted under the EPA’s new rule. 

Opinion: I believe that this is a very poor decision that is intended to hide flaws within Trump’s EPA. As noted by the article, Trump is continuing to repeal policies in order to facilitate more pollution and use of fossil fuels. This will obviously be a massive detriment to the environment as it will result in pollution of water, air, and ecologies. In order to conceal these damages, he is limiting ways they can be quantified and compared to previous administrations. He then can point to economic strides made with poisonous fossil fuels without the substantial evidence to prove the resulting damages. I believe this is a corrupt and misleading practice which does not benefit the environment, economy, or nation as a whole. 

Article 3 (The Future of Climate Governance: Key Takeaways from John Cruden’s 2025 EELU Distinguished Lecture) 

Sep 26, 2025. (2025, October 17). The future of climate governance –. Vanderbilt Law School. https://law.vanderbilt.edu/future-of-climate-governance-john-cruden-2025-eelu-distinguished-lecture/ 

Abstract: This article compares previous success of the US government with current actions, specifically regarding the development of environmental legislation. Previously the United States was the leader in environmental policy as evidenced by 93% of countries adopting policies similar to the US’s 1969 National Environmental Policy Act. This is because the United States adopted a “top-down” approach due to strong bipartisan support from politicians and citizens. This led to a large stride including the creation of the EPA in 1970, the Clean Water Act in 1972, and Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. However, this bipartisan effort ended in 1990 leading to congressional gridlock, preventing many beneficial legislation from passing. This is partly due to political polarization. In addition, the source asserts that large companies can be huge motivators of climate change as they can demand specific conditions from their suppliers. However, many believe that said corporations are not doing enough. 

Opinion: This article shows the possibility for the United States emergence as an environmental leader is being stifled by our political polarity. We used to lead and helped many countries take great strides in developing environmentally friendly legislation. Now, addressing climate change is only associated with democratic/progressivism when it does not need to be phrased as such. Regardless of one’s political affiliation we need to educate the young on short v. long term goals especially regarding the business and the environment. Hopefully then we can rid ourselves of this congressional gridlock while simultaneously keeping open discourse about many other facets of our nation. 

Article 2 https://elpc.org/news/environmental-consumer-groups-challenge-trumps-unlawful-coal-plant-extensions/

Environmental, consumer groups challenge Trump’s Unlawful Coal Plant Extensions: ELPC. Environmental Law & Policy Center. (2026, January 23). https://elpc.org/news/environmental-consumer-groups-challenge-trumps-unlawful-coal-plant-extensions/ 

Abstract: This article discusses Trump’s decision to continue operations in the Schaefer and Culley coal plants despite their planned retirements already passing. To do this he is unlawfully using Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act which is intended to be used in case of extreme weather or war. He is resuscitating these plants in order to bolster the coal industry. However, this aid is coming at the detriment of all Indiana citizens as they will cost at least $70 million dollars and will lose even more in profits. This unlawful decision prompted the Environmental Law and Policy Center, Sierra Club, Earthjustice representing Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Just Transition Northwest Indiana, Hoosier Environment Council, and Public Citizens to file rehearing requests. This is increasing economic instability and pollution and will continue to affect many generations. 

Opinion: I completely agree with the public outrage regarding these coal plants. Keeping such plants open harms the environment, aren’t economically profitable, and prevents advancement in energy technologies. Trump cannot use the facade of aiding his economy as these decisions are adding millions in taxes yearly for Indiana citizens. His only rationale is to bolster his rich friends and investments within the coal industry. He is poisoning both the economy and the environment in order to fill his administration’s pockets. To develop our economy and protect our environment we need to construct more plants which prioritize efficiency and utilize more renewable resources. These ancient coal plants do neither and need to be put to rest. 

Article 1: The Laws Still Exist, the Consequences Don’t: American’s Vanishing Environmental Enforcement, 

Thoms, L. (2025, December 15). The laws still exist, the consequences don’t: America’s Vanishing Environmental Enforcement. Earthjustice. https://earthjustice.org/experts/laura-thoms/the-laws-still-exist-the-consequences-dont-americas-vanishing-environmental-enforcement 

Abstract: This article details the current status of environmental laws and more specifically their enforcement. The article asserts that almost all consequences for pollution have collapsed since the beginning of the Trump Administration. The article believes this is because Trump wants to aid large corporations in avoiding their legal obligations, constructing schemes to avoid laws. This is clearly evident in the discrepancy between 2025 Trump’s 20 civil environmental cases v 2024 Biden’s 88. This leaves many corporations, especially powerful ones, to pollute freely which is unsustainable and wrong. Said corporations can dump toxic waste in rivers, release carcinogens into the air, and endanger the environment and US citizens without any punishment. Despite Trump’s promise for the “cleanest air and water” the administration has done the opposite and US families are suffering as a result. 

Opinion: I could not agree more with this article. Climate laws and regulations are set in place for a reason, to be enforced. By ignoring laws for the sake of business advancements we are prioritizing short gain over long term health. If Trump wants to actually support continued business practices throughout America, ensuring sustainability is integral for future-proofing our economy. While this isn’t as immediately economically viable, we will be protecting our resources and won’t have to undergo as many carbon/environmental offsets. This all stems from asserting several pollution baselines and enforcing them without bias. In addition, the United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases meaning any significant improvements we make will greatly affect global warming and may similarly inspire others.

Calif. Suspends Environmental Laws to Ease Wildfire Prevention. (2025, March 3). GovTech. https://www.govtech.com/em/preparedness/calif-suspends-environmental-laws-to-ease-wildfire-prevention

‌ This article discusses Governor Gavin Newsom’s actions as he suspends environmental regulations to help defend against wildfires. Newsom suspended both the CEQA and California Coastal Act as California prepares for the summer and fall fire season. Newsom has asked Donald Trump for aid with fires and has been often shot down. Instead, Trump blames California for the fires despite the federal government owning more than half of it. Governor Newsom also eased the ability for rebuilding. Back in 2019, Newsom suspended several environmental regulations due a campfire erupting and destroying the entire town of Paradise. He had suspended both the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Natural Resources Agency. 

This article relates to environmental science as it regards sustaining natural disasters, specifically wildfires. Governor Newsom is making several pushes to increase safety and prevent wildfire destruction. Donald Trump rejects funding California and supporting wildfire prevention, most likely due to political differences. I agree with Newsom’s goals and actions as he tries to balance environmental restrictions with protecting his citizens. I feel that Donald Trump’s lack of support is unjustified especially due to the government owning a majority of the land. 

‌Smith, H. (2025, March 14). How the EPA’s environmental about-face could upend California’s climate efforts. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-03-14/heres-how-the-epas-attack-on-environmental-regulations-could-upend-californias-climate-efforts

‌

This article discusses the actions of Trump’s EPA led by Lee Zeldin. Zeldin, as an attempt to save money, is disposing of many long-lasting environmental regulations. Zeldin refers to California’s opposition to carbon emissions as “the holy grail of the climate change religion”. Not only does the EPA aim to dispose of regulations, but also mandated reporting of emissions. The EPA is also attacking Newsom’s attempt to remove all gas cars by 2035. This significantly affects California as while it is on an upward trajectory, it still contains some of the worst air quality in the world. Also, the EPA’s revisions of the “waters of the United States” is affecting California’s gains in water quality. Not all EPA’s changes may pass as they require scientific and legal justification and will be greatly opposed.

This article relates to environmental science as the EPA is disposing of various strides in environmental science and ecology. Many Californians are trying to fight back and will continue to legally, but many damages have already been done. I completely agree with the Californian side as many actions of the EPA seem to be solely done for political and economic gain. They align with Donald Trump’s agenda and therefore are being implemented, regardless of the environmental impact. 

Nieves, A. (2025, July 10). California has an idea to counter Trump’s megabill: Roll back environmental laws. POLITICO; Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/09/california-has-an-idea-to-counter-trumps-megabill-roll-back-environmental-laws-00446120

This article discusses steps taken by California in response to Trump’s new megabill. This megabill demolishes several of Biden’s tax credits which promoted clean energy forms such as solar panels, electric vehicles, and wind turbines. However, now without such tax credits there is no incentive as California already struggles financially meaning we can’t raise taxes to do so. Therefore, many are suggesting the removal of CEQA restrictions as it is yet another factor limiting California eco development. These CEQA bills are being pushed hard by Wiener, Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Caroline Menjivar and more. This is resulting in tax breaks for high-speed rail, EV factories, and wildfire fuel. Newsom said he will support EV incentives by using that state’s cap-and-trade options due to the federal credit being taken away. However, he has already spent a massive amount on the firefighting agency. 

This article is related to environmental sciences in many ways. It similarly tackles the issue of CEQA presented in the previous articles. However, it also presents the issue of Trump’s megabill which destroys previous ecofriendly incentives. I agree with the removal of many CEQA restrictions as a result of this megabill. The megabill is already getting in the way of many ecofriendly projects which don’t need to be further obstructed by CEQA. We especially need more progression in our defense to wildfires, which progress is being halted by both the megabill and CEQA. 

Jacobo, J. (2025, July 2). California just rolled back a landmark environmental policy. Here’s what it means. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-rolled-back-landmark-environmental-policy-means/story?id=123374098

‌This article discusses the trailer budget bill. This bill relieves various CEQA restrictions from construction projects typically if such buildings are environmentally and socially beneficial. These projects include water system upgrades, manufacturing facilities, and wildfire fuel breaks. Many supporters of this bill point to the fact that California “desperately need[s] infrastructure especially in poorer neighborhoods. Many opposers dispute the interference of CEQA in the housing and infrastructure crisis arguing there is little evidence that shows correlation. This bill will boost planning and zoning but will also reduce proprietary appreciation due to an increased abundance of housing. Some supporters of the bill argue that people who oppose the bill are acting with greed under the guise of environmental concern. Supporters suggest that policymakers should be intelligent enough to balance environmental impact and housing. Also due to specific zones where it’s applied it can create disproportionate burdens on certain zones.

This article similarly tackles bills restricting CEQA. This clearly is an environmental science issue as it is about balancing these new projects while not damaging the environment. This is a similar premise to the previous article but with an emphasis on the trailer bill which appears more focused on environmentally sustainable support infrastructure. I largely agree with the logic behind this bill. My main gripe is the argument that policymakers should be “smart enough” to balance environmental and infrastructure needs. My issue is that policymakers aren’t as knowledgeable in the science and ramifications of such actions, and therefore need to be better educated before signing large bills. All in all, I agree with most actions of the bill but find slight faults in the logic and decisions of policymakers.