While the fires ravaging California, and particularly Los Angeles, have already caused the death of sixteen people and led to the evacuation of more than 180,000 residents, President-elect Donald Trump has attacked the Democratic leaders of this state of the western United States. On his Truth Social network, he claimed that the region lacked water because of environmental policies and that rainwater would be diverted to protect “useless fish”. False information also relayed by billionaire Elon Musk, close to the Republican, and who will appear in his new government.
Their reaction hardly surprises Christophe Roncato, lecturer in American studies at the University of Grenoble Alpes, specialist in environmental history and industrial ecology. This researcher, who studies California’s energy transition, lived in the region in the 1990s, before returning regularly for his work during the 2010s. During these periods, he witnessed the lengthening of the fire season, one of the consequences of climate change. It takes a lucid look at the “oversimplified” speech of the two men, and evokes the future of American climate policies under Donald Trump’s second term.
L’Express: Donald Trump is not even in office yet and he is already triggering a first controversy by relaying false information and placing all the responsibility on Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California…
Christophe Roncato: This is his strategy! Why not blame the neighbor… Donald Trump constantly blows hot and cold, and rather hot in fact. I remember two things from it. The first, the heart of the matter: if we go beyond his fanciful side, the socio-ecological issues are trivial for him. In Trump’s mind, economics and ecology are decoupled. In this, he is part of a tradition which finds its roots in certain 18th century economists for whom “wealth is inexhaustible”. This tradition still nourishes current neoliberal thinking, of which he is the heir. The environment has no value for him other than financial.
The second: there is a lot to learn from his management of natural disasters during his first mandate. Between 2017 and 2020, there were at least four major disasters: in 2018, California was hit by major fires; Washington State in 2020; and in 2017, Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico with rare violence. These two Democratic states and the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico not supporting Trump, he is voluntarily delaying the sending of emergency financial aid. He did everything to ensure that they did not happen, or not entirely. Conversely, when Hurricane Michael hit Florida in 2018, Trump immediately released all emergency funds, insisting that Florida had voted 90% for him. This clientelist policy sums up its operation well. If it serves him, or if we have served him beforehand, via a vote for example, he moves forward with open arms. But if he doesn’t find his interests there, it’s much more complicated.
Elon Musk also downplayed the role of climate change in the Los Angeles fires. What can this duo give for the environmental policy of the United States under the second term of Donald Trump? The continuation of this policy of “climate clientelism”?
Completely. Two comments. In 2016, Donald Trump was a little surprised by his victory and wasn’t really prepared. The first weeks passed without a single press conference. But this time, he is in battle order. It’s not yet January 20 that he has already put everyone in place. He will be more efficient and execute his program much faster and deeper. He has already placed a large part of his pawns – pawns which are really at his disposal. This is what worries me the most. During Trump 1, we had people like Mike Pence who served as guardrails; particularly on the episodes that I mentioned above, the example of the fires in California. Under the Trump 2 administration, it is very likely that these safeguards will disappear.
Then, the preparation for the second term is very different. The key positions of the future administration are already filled. At the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it is Lee Zeldin, who comes from fossil fuels and who is in favor of weakening environmental laws. At the Department of Energy, it is Chris Wright, CEO of the oil company Liberty Energy, a notorious climate skeptic. They will fight to deregulate as much as possible. The economy is completely above ground. Everything happens as if the economy and ecology were evolving in two different spheres, as if no raw materials were involved in the production and consumption chains. Amazing, right?
Faced with the resurgence of climate disasters, how long can Donald Trump or Elon Musk stay on this line of denial?
They are pushing forward an agenda and have no use for science. If there is a disaster and the state is majority Republican, I think they will release aid quickly. And then conversely, we will tell people like Gavin Newsom, therefore Democrats, that they have mismanaged their affairs. We are currently seeing it with the Los Angeles fires, Trump accuses Newson of having mismanaged water resources. We also often hear the argument of poor management of logging, which leaves a lot of vegetation capable of fueling fires… As always, whether it is Donald Trump or Elon Musk, everything is simplified to the extreme. Where we could question the long-term dynamics which fuel the ecological crisis, about public policies, about choices in terms of urban planning, we spread invectives.
Does this portend complicated relations between the federal state and California, already very critical of the president-elect during his first term?
Listening to Gavin Newsom react to Donald Trump’s comments, we sense that he is exasperated. There will be tensions. But it is obvious that these governors and their administrations are banking on the fairly significant room for maneuver that they have at the level of their state.
Other problems will surely arise. The example of insurance is interesting. In California, some insurers withdrew two years ago and the federal government is supposed to take over. On a fire of this size, which has the impact of a hurricane – we are talking about 50 billion dollars in damage – it is Washington which should take over. But the amount is such that one wonders if the federal government will be able to release it. And what about Trump’s choices in such a context? It seems likely to me that Trump 2 will further reinforce social and environmental injustices.
California, heavily affected by these fires, paradoxically has the reputation of being a good student of the energy transition…
Historically, it is one of the very first states to take a position on environmental issues. Already in the 1880s, the first regulations on the subject appeared: for example, hydraulic extraction was prohibited, which caused major damage by ravaging entire watersheds. In the field of transport, let us also think, later, of catalytic converters, tested in the Californian laboratory and which then flourished on a national and international scale.
But we are also at the heart of a paradox, with this State which has the economic strength of a country. When we look at California’s transition scenario, certainly very ambitious and developed by experts, we can wonder about the choices that support it. Typically everything relating to raw material needs, although essential to a just transition, is not taken into account. Metal resources are not quantified, the externalities linked to the extraction of these resources are not identified. In certain respects, California also forgets that the economy and ecology are intimately intertwined.
.