What are Trump's Climate Plans?
What has Donald Trump claimed he would do when it comes to environmental policy in the U.S.? What happened during his last administration? And what are the limits on executive powers when it comes to treaties and global agreements?
Just days before Trump’s inauguration, this episode comes to us from our friends over at Civics 101.
Featuring Elizabeth Bomberg.
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
Check out Nate’s episode on Biden’s climate legacy — “Is Biden a Good Climate President?”
SUPPORT
To share your questions and feedback with Outside/In, call the show’s hotline and leave us a voicemail. The number is 1-844-GO-OTTER. No question is too serious or too silly.
Outside/In is made possible with listener support. Click here to become a sustaining member of Outside/In.
Follow Outside/In on Instagram or join our private discussion group on Facebook.
CREDITS
Civics 101 Hosts: Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice
Produced by Hannah McCarthy with help from Nick Capodice and Marina Henke
Senior Producer: Christina Phillips
Executive Producer: Rebecca Lavoie
Music by Diana, Particle House, Craig Weaver, Lucas Got Lucky, Mind Me, Mindless, Timothy Infinite, Sven Lindvall, and Zorro.
Outside/In Host: Nate Hegyi
Outside/In team: Justine Paradis, Felix Poon, Marina Henke, and Kate Dario.
Executive Producer: Taylor Quimby
NHPR’s Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie
Outside/In and Civics 101 are a production of New Hampshire Public Radio
Audio Transcript
Note: Episodes of Outside/In are made as pieces of audio, and some context and nuance may be lost on the page. Transcripts are generated using a combination of speech recognition software and human transcribers, and may contain errors.
Hannah McCarthy
This episode is coming out just a week before former President Donald Trump once again becomes President Trump. Now, Trump laid out plenty of intentions over the course of his campaign. We'll be returning to his day one promises in an upcoming episode. But for today, we're going to take a closer look at an issue that has long been inciting and activating in this country.
Archival
I'm a 15 year old climate warrior spokesperson for my generation, and I'm suing the United States government for violating my constitutional right to a healthy atmosphere.
Archival
Scientists have concluded the growing number of fires is a result of climate change. But some voters still remain skeptical.
Archival
Our colleague said, why are we having this discussion? There is no climate crisis. It's all a hoax.
Archival
The scientific consensus is clear climate change is real.
Archival
I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data. You know.
Archival
All these politicians were talking about the economy. There is no economy. There is no functioning society on a planet that is in ecological collapse.
Archival
And so the reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.
Archival
Polls show more than 60% of Americans disapprove of President Trump's handling of climate change.
Hannah McCarthy
This is Civics 101 I'm Hannah McCarthy.
Nick Capodice
I'm Nick Capodice.
Hannah McCarthy
And I think it's important to note that while I am recording this episode, wildfires, including the most destructive in Los Angeles history, a raging in California. While there is a strong consensus among scientists that climate change increases both the frequency and severity of forest fires. President elect Trump and other Republicans have already blamed Democratic policies, not climate change, for the devastation. But one way or another, we are definitely talking about the environment here. So looking forward, what has Donald Trump promised to do when it comes to environmental policy in the US? What do we know? What do we not know? We're turning to someone who does know this issue pretty well Elizabeth Bomberg.
Elizabeth Bomberg
Yeah, I'm Elizabeth Bomberg, and I'm a professor of environmental politics here in Edinburgh, Scotland, but I'm actually originally from California.
Hannah McCarthy
All right. So before we take a look to the future, we're going to gaze into the past. We cannot know for certain what president elect Trump will do when he takes the office again. But we do know what he's done in the past.
Nick Capodice
And real quick, can we just remind everyone what the president is actually allowed to.
Hannah McCarthy
Do when it comes to climate policy, we can.
Elizabeth Bomberg
What presidents generally, including President Trump, can do is. Literally, the day they enter office, they can issue a whole series of executive orders. And those aren't legislation, but they are orders that, say, could eliminate certain. Regulations on environmental protection or climate. Or they could eliminate certain. Sources of funding.
Nick Capodice
And executive orders, while swift and decisive, aren't necessarily long lasting.
Hannah McCarthy
No. For one, they can be overturned by a new president. Trump signed 220 of them in his first term. President Joe Biden rescinded 62 of those in his first 100 days alone. For another, they can be rendered ineffective by Congress if lawmakers so choose by failing to provide funding, for example. They are also frequently challenged in court. One other thing that presidents have the power to do, and we'll talk about this later, is join or reject global agreements.
Nick Capodice
And we're talking environmental policy in this episode. So what did that look like under the first Trump administration?
Elizabeth Bomberg
So I think overall, it would be difficult to characterize his first term as particularly promising for environmental protection or for climate emissions. His first term is, in my view, having studied this, better characterized as one dominated by a desire to slash funding for scientific expertise and for research, but also to eliminate many of the really significant environmental protections That the federal government had put in place for the last couple decades. And the third plank of my characterization would be a general hostility towards the idea of climate as a serious threat. He has characterized it in the past and also more recently as a hoax or a scam. So he does not take climate change seriously.
Archival
All of this with the global warming and that a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money making industry, okay? It's a hoax.
Nick Capodice
And this hoax claim definitely stuck. Hannah.
Hannah McCarthy
Yeah, very much so. And to be clear, climate change is not a hoax. In his first term, Trump opposed policies that limited carbon, mercury and methane emissions, opposed protections for wildlife and wetlands, and energy efficiency standards. He also shrunk two national monuments, one by 85% and the other by about half, to open the land up for fossil fuel and gas leases. A big motivator here, as Elizabeth pointed out, is that Trump sees a direct contradiction between environmental protection and economic growth.
Elizabeth Bomberg
He doesn't see these as mutually compatible, and he favors economic growth. I think that's how I would sum that up. So he thinks that those who are concerned about climate or want to take really ambitious measures are doing so because they have some other political agenda, or maybe they just don't know the science. Maybe that's what he would say. But if climate change enters his vocabulary, it is inevitably linked to the to the idea of this is a hoax, or this is a scam, or this has been exaggerated, or this is another element of wokism or something of that sort.
Hannah McCarthy
So I feel like we do have to mention that Trump has called himself a great environmentalist president.
Archival
But it's true, number one, since Teddy Roosevelt. Who would have thought Trump is the great environmentalist? Do you hear that? Do you hear that? That's good. And I am, I am I believe strongly in it.
Nick Capodice
So, Hannah, what exactly is the plan for the future here? Like we know how Trump feels about environmental policies. We know what he's done in the past. So what does he plan to do with his next term.
Hannah McCarthy
In terms of Trump's promises or plans to protect or strengthen the environment? Here is what we know.
Elizabeth Bomberg
What he would focus on is policies, say, around tree planting. He has endorsed and said we need to plant more trees and he wants clean air and water. And he says, you know, the US does have the cleanest water and air of any nation. And while that's not statistically true, it does show that there might be some areas that he wants to strengthen as far.
Hannah McCarthy
As his other promises go.
Elizabeth Bomberg
And so what he had promised quite consistently and probably will deliver on, is that he will do his best to scrap many of these regulations so that industry, and especially above all fossil fuel industries, can get on with their job, as he puts it, because he wants to expand enormously fossil fuel extraction in all kinds of areas through fracking, which we can talk about later, but also through increased drilling, including on public lands, including in wilderness areas.
Nick Capodice
So when we hear drill, baby, drill and.
Archival
We will drill, baby drill.
Nick Capodice
Is this what we're talking about?
Hannah McCarthy
Yeah. Oil from federal lands and water accounts for nearly a quarter of US oil production. And we will talk about current American oil production levels in a bit. And Trump wants to ramp that up and cut regulations on fossil fuel extraction. He also promises to reduce support for low carbon energy sources.
Nick Capodice
And by that we mean.
Hannah McCarthy
Think solar, thermal, geothermal and nuclear power, wind power, low carbon biofuels made from algae or plant waste, or zero carbon fuels like ammonia or hydrogen. Electric vehicles, for the record, fall under this category for Trump as well. He has equated new car emission standards with electric cars themselves, claimed that people could be forced essentially to buy only electric cars. He talks about an electric vehicle mandate that does not exist. Trump also happens to have chosen Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who has made a lot of money from electric vehicles for his new government efficiency department. But so far, Musk is on Trump's side on this.
Archival
And I will end. The electric vehicle mandate on day one. Thereby saving the US auto industry from. Complete obliteration, which is happening right now and saving U.S. customers. Thousands and thousands of dollars per car.
Hannah McCarthy
Trump also vows to revoke the Inflation Reduction Act, which incentivizes the transition to, quote unquote, clean energy and, of course, to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Nick Capodice
All right. These are the promises. But you know what I always say about promises, Hannah from The Cremation of Sam McGee. A promise made is a debt unpaid. And to that, may I add, may we all be Lannisters.
Hannah McCarthy
I mean, I'm not entirely sure that's how politicians see it. Nor do I think that we should aspire to be Lannisters. But I do take your point, and I do think a lot of American voters care about promises. So what is the near future of American climate policy? We'll get to that in the future after this break.
Nick Capodice
But before that break, a reminder that Hannah and I wrote a book. Holy cats. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works. We think you're gonna need it. Anyways, you can get it wherever you get your books. We're back. You're listening to civics 101. We are talking about the future, specifically what we might expect from president elect Donald Trump in terms of environmental policy. And Hannah, before the break, you promised me a little something that is to tell me what's gonna happen.
Hannah McCarthy
Well, we're not in the business of forecasting here at Civics 101, but we are in the business of speaking with people who know a lot more about what's going on than we do. That's where Elizabeth Bomberg comes back in. So let's start with a highly likely event.
Elizabeth Bomberg
A major executive action of Trump's, which is not about domestic policy, but it was to withdraw the US from a really major international climate change agreement called the Paris Agreement.
Nick Capodice
Okay. We do hear about this one a lot. Uh, two things we got to take care of here. First off, what is the Paris Agreement?
Elizabeth Bomberg
The Paris Agreement was signed by nearly 200 countries in 2015, and it's a major United Nations agreement. And this Paris agreement stipulates Relates that all the countries who sign up for it, including the US, pledge to set national targets and put in place kind of domestic measures that will reduce their own climate emissions. Okay. It's not itself binding. It's not as though a UN officers are going to go in and check. It's voluntary, which is why it was agreed to by 190 something states. And the idea is that let countries themselves figure out what can they do to put forward a pledge that collectively will ensure that countries across the globe are able to reach a global emission target that keeps the climate warming to under two degrees, or ideally, even 1.5.
Nick Capodice
All right. And we know that Trump has taken us out of this agreement before.
Hannah McCarthy
Though Biden did put us right back in when he won the presidency.
Nick Capodice
And this agreement. It's not binding. There's no giant penalty for not meeting your targets.
Hannah McCarthy
No, but promise made debt unpaid, right? You say you're going to do something. So do you do it? Are you showing that you're a climate leader? Are you going to prove your country to be a source of new environmental technology, a good potential partner, a country other countries want to make deals with? It's the social, political and economic pressure that keeps this agreement rolling.
Nick Capodice
And given that Trump is promising to take us out of this agreement yet again, what does that actually mean?
Elizabeth Bomberg
It doesn't change what the US is likely to do domestically. There are disadvantages for the US of pulling out. It means we domestically we lose an incentive Of to further cut our emissions and share our innovations and work harder to achieve a goal that is good for everyone across the globe. Okay, so we don't get to be a part of that. Um, but it also means more strategically if you're not a part of that treaty, um, you no longer have a seat at that table. So you're not able to shape these global targets. So leaving the Paris Agreement, which almost certainly Trump will do, this will have slightly negative effects, but it won't be devastating.
Hannah McCarthy
Before we move on, we do need to touch on one maybe related thing here. There's the Paris Agreement and then there's the Unfcc.
Nick Capodice
I'm listening.
Elizabeth Bomberg
What we don't know is whether the Trump administration will go beyond just leaving this agreement. There is some talk and some of his advisers and some of the more conservative think tanks who have shaped his campaigns and continue to shape his policies. What they would like is for the US to withdraw not just from one agreement, but from the entire UN framework that underpins all climate negotiations. Right. That would be much more serious. So that is called the UN, IPCC or the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change.
Nick Capodice
Hold up. Is the UNF IPCC a treaty like a treaty? Treaty?
Hannah McCarthy
It is indeed.
Nick Capodice
So can the president actually pull us out of a treaty agreement? Isn't that like an advice and consent of the Senate thing? Operative word here being consent.
Elizabeth Bomberg
There's some ambiguity whether the Trump administration can pull the US out of the whole framework convention without the support of the Senate. Because the Senate, your listeners might know, the Senate gets to approve whether the US can join a treaty. What we don't know is whether we need Senate approval, two thirds approval. So a big approval to pull the US out of the treaty. So this will be really interesting legally, if the Trump administration does try, it wouldn't take place right away, but it's something to watch.
Hannah McCarthy
All right. Moving on. Let's drill a little deeper here.
Drill baby drill.
Elizabeth Bomberg
Drill baby drill. Yes. Yeah. There's a couple disincentives for companies who might want to drill. And one is gaining access to the land, especially if it's public land, because much of the drilling and extraction is done in public land. And then what kind of controls and permits and permissions. Do you need to put in place before you start drilling? So if those are relaxed, then those fossil fuel firms will have an easier time in drilling in more places, including quite pristine wilderness. So I think we will see more of that.
Nick Capodice
More of that though I will say we have had plenty of drilling during Biden's presidency, haven't we?
Elizabeth Bomberg
Record breaking and ironically, fossil fuel firms, energy firms have some of the highest profits. This is not something that the Biden or the Harris campaign made a big deal of, but it is one of the reasons that those who were environmentally or climate very focused voters, including many young voters, did not enthusiastically support the Democratic ticket.
Hannah McCarthy
Elizabeth did add that this is all complicated by permits that were already issued. Disruptions in the fossil fuel supply from Russia. The ongoing war in Ukraine increased global demand. Et cetera. All of which led to an energy crisis. Also opening areas and providing leases for drilling. That's one thing, but the government cannot control the oil market or whether oil companies choose to drill. Still, drilling was at an all time high under President Biden. Biden did very recently, by the way, issue an offshore drilling ban, which Trump promises to revoke on day one.
Archival
They took away 625 million acres of offshore drilling. Nobody else does that. And they think they have it. But we'll put it back. I'm going to put it back on day one. I'm going to have it revoked on day one. We'll go immediately if we need to. I don't think we should have to go to the.
Courts, but if we do have to go to court.
Nick Capodice
And I know we have mentioned it, Hannah, but there are a lot of regulations at play here, right? Regulations that Trump wants to dismantle to allow the fossil fuel industry to ramp things up. So who's in charge of that?
Elizabeth Bomberg
The Department of Energy traditionally has been in charge and responsible for energy extraction. So rules and also incentives for how the US gets its energy, as well as regulation of how that energy should be extracted and what should happen to the waste from that energy extraction. So here I think we'll see something quite dramatic, especially if Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Energy, that's Chris Wright is his nominee and again, has to be approved. But if he is approved, he is himself a climate denier. And also he's made his millions through fracking. What he has already vowed as his Trump is to remove significantly the controls that are now put on how fracking is done.
Hannah McCarthy
Fracking, by the way, also known as hydraulic fracturing. It's a process that cracks open rocks beneath the surface of the Earth to extract trapped natural gas and oil. Fracking is thought to pose a threat to drinking water, both the supply and the cleanliness. It has been tied to increased earthquakes. The process itself, as well as the use of natural gas and oil, also contributes to air pollution. Okay, so we've talked about regulations before. They come from executive branch agencies. And it is Congress that gives those agencies the authority to issue regulations. And environmental regulations are, of course, not exclusive to fossil fuel extraction. We're also talking about emissions, pollutants, all sorts of things that poison or diminish the air, water and soil.
Elizabeth Bomberg
What we will probably see in the first couple of days is, first, a slashing of funding and support and power for particular regulatory agencies. So one target would be the Environmental Protection Agency. So this is the federal agency that is in charge of protecting human health and the environment more generally. And it is the agency that issues regulations that limit the amount of carbon that can be released into the air, or limits the amount of chemicals that can be sprayed, or limits the kind of pollutants that can be dumped in waterways. So basic, but, you know, crucial environmental protection. The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, relies on regulations that it can then implement. But these many of these regulations can be removed by executive order because they're not congressional legislation. It's an executive regulation.
Hannah McCarthy
Now, just to be clear, there are processes in place when it comes to how regulation happens or goes away. There's a rulemaking procedure governed by law. But as we learned in the previous Trump administration, breaking with common practice does not necessarily amount to breaking the law, especially when the courts are on your side on.
Nick Capodice
That particular subject. I feel like our episode on the Chevron Doctrine might have some useful background. There's a link in the show notes.
Hannah McCarthy
Yet courts no longer have to defer to executive agency expertise, so they are way more empowered to reject agency regulations. Okay. Moving on. Trump has promised to either defund or reduce funding for lowering carbon emissions.
Nick Capodice
This is what we talked about earlier. Wind and solar and stuff like that. Uh, renewable energy.
Hannah McCarthy
Yeah. And there's a significant hitch when it comes to pulling government support of renewable energy. And that hitch isn't just political, it's also economic.
Elizabeth Bomberg
On one hand, we have without a doubt, and this is something that Trump or no one person could stop, is that we have this inexorable trend. We have an unstoppable trend towards renewables globally and also in the US. Renewables are increasing, including and this is what makes it very interesting. The most dramatic increases has been not in the blue states like California and New York. No, it's been in the red states. It's been especially in Texas. So you've got these states who are benefiting enormously from renewable energy. But then you also have an incoming administration that wants to get rid of renewables, or certainly doesn't endorse renewables as a way towards energy independence.
Nick Capodice
Okay, so basically, Trump vows to withdraw support for renewable energy, but renewable energy is making money.
Hannah McCarthy
And one not insignificant factor is that there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there about what else renewable energy is doing.
Elizabeth Bomberg
Some very powerful but unfounded claims or conspiracies.
Archival
They're dangerous. You see what's happening up in the Massachusetts area with the whales, where they had two whales wash ashore, and I think a 17 year period, and now they had 14 this season. The windmills are driving the whales crazy.
Elizabeth Bomberg
Some of the key purveyors of those unfounded claims are potential nominees, including Robert Kennedy Jr, who does think that offshore wind is a danger to health. What that means for investment? We still don't know because the government can set incentives and subsidies, but I don't think those statements are enough to stop this really powerful trend.
Hannah McCarthy
Elizabeth did say that even if the United States reduces or withdraws support for renewable energy development and production, and by the way, that support often comes in the form of tax subsidies, aka tax breaks for companies that are exploring and manufacturing renewable energy sources. Anyway, even without that government support, Elizabeth doesn't see this upward trend toward renewables going away. It's a global thing. What she does see potentially happening is renewable startups struggling in the US and America, potentially losing its footing in the renewable energy race.
Elizabeth Bomberg
If you're someone just starting and you need that government subsidies to help you, the way that those government subsidies helped Elon Musk with his, you know, electric cars or what have you, that won't happen. And it also means and this is harder to measure, but I think we'll have really significant implications is that if the US government withdraws that support, both rhetorical support but also financial support, that means others will step in. So the main threat to the production of US green energy right now is a competition from China. So if the US steps back, then China production will increase to supply those to others.
Hannah McCarthy
Basically, Elizabeth says. Watch what happens on that front. Trump is also, of course, promising tariffs on goods imported from China. Listen to our episode on tariffs to understand exactly what that means. But if the United States isn't buying renewables from China, it might encourage domestic production. Assuming, of course, there are incentives like tax subsidies to get that production off the ground.
Elizabeth Bomberg
Producers, you know, business people whom Trump does listen to more than an environmentalist. If they say, look, you know, we need this for jobs and we need this to make us energy independent. Trump is somewhat agnostic. You know, I think he can be open. We know he's a transactional person who just sees a deal and he likes to get that done. So he might listen to that and decide to change his opposition to renewables. That wouldn't surprise me. I could see him coming out. It would be interesting to interesting to watch.
Hannah McCarthy
Okay. Last big environmental policy promise Trump made to revoke the Inflation Reduction Act.
Elizabeth Bomberg
Trump cannot revoke the Inflation Reduction Act. Okay. It's a congressional piece of legislation. That doesn't mean that he can't try. And he has allies in Congress and his party controls both houses. But key here is that he will need to go through Congress. He will need to work with Congress to revoke all or parts of that act. As we were speaking about before, the Republican states are the most significant beneficiaries of the Inflation Reduction Act. So that act provided oodles of money for investment in green transition and to jumpstart renewable energy production. Did a whole host of host of things. Many Republicans don't want that repealed.
Nick Capodice
So that really makes it sound like the Inflation Reduction Act isn't going anywhere.
Elizabeth Bomberg
Well, there could be regulations that undermine some of the dimensions that are in the Inflation Reduction Act. So that's that's a way of that's a more a sneaky way to undermine some of the goals and aims of the Inflation Reduction Act without revoking the act itself. The Inflation Reduction Act set aside particular pots of money for particular communities. There was a very strong justice element attached to the Inflation Reduction Act. So these would be particularly deprived communities, generally communities of color who are suffering the most from pollution or the effects of climate change, and there were certain programs that are funded to help address some of that because they haven't been implemented yet. It could be that the Trump administration, then is able not to get rid of the pot, but stop the implementation of that money being dispersed. For instance.
Hannah McCarthy
The Biden administration, by the way, is currently trying to get as much of that money dispersed as possible before they're out of the white House. But moving billions of dollars from federal coffers to state and local governments is not an easy task. There are also tax incentives for individuals and families buying electric vehicles, solar panels, even heat pumps. But these require paperwork and navigating supply chain problems so that one might be a race against the clock.
Nick Capodice
So, Hannah, I think it's important to point out here that there are promises and there are Possibles and there are probables. Right. But ultimately we can't know what this new administration will do with and to environmental policy in the United States, especially when so many of these plans involve existing law and procedures.
Hannah McCarthy
We really can't. We just have to wait and see. So I think for those invested in the fate of climate policy, one way or another, Elizabeth is really just saying, here's what to look for, here's what to watch. Basically, pay attention to X, Y, and Z because here's what it could mean. But policy and law and legality aside, Elizabeth says that Trump has already accomplished a meaningful and likely lasting change when it comes to American attitudes toward the environment.
Elizabeth Bomberg
I think this idea of an ideational or the role of narratives kind of shaping the narratives, because those can outlive any particular president and they're much harder to shift. So I think in Trump's first term, he already sought to change in significant ways the way that Americans think about the environment and the way they think about climate and the way they think about America's leadership role or America's role in the world. And I think in all these areas, we are still witnessing the impact that he had in his first term. One of the areas is how do Americans view expertise? How much do they trust international and national institutions to identify a problem and then address the problem? And there has been such a significant drop in Americans trust of scientists. America's trust in expertise more generally, and even Americans trust in the role of federal or state institutions to deliver a common good.
Hannah McCarthy
And Elizabeth says there is the fact that the incoming administration has a much better handle on how things work than it did the last time around. A much stronger team that knows exactly what it wants and has a pretty good idea of how to get there. Deregulation is a pretty common name of the game here, not just with environmental policies, but beyond. By the same turn, though, Elizabeth believes that those who are concerned about losing climate and environmental protections have learned a thing or two as well.
Elizabeth Bomberg
Those who are advocates for environmental action, they've seen this now before. This is not new and shocking. And oh my gosh, where did this come from and how do how do we react and what can we do? They know what the playbook is, how to reach those members of Congress who are benefiting, how to focus on state measures. They will come even more important than in the past, and states are already building all kinds of alliances. But also, I think that those advocating for change have become slightly more sophisticated or or becoming more in tune with what motivates voters in the public more generally. And it's actually not to be green, and it's not because it's the right thing to do. It's making much more of the interlocking between environmental and climate action and other things that Americans value. You know, whether that be future generations or whether that be, you know, the beautiful national parks and things around us, or whether if you're a person of faith, what does that bring or whether you care about social equality. So the idea of intersecting. More of linking climate and environment to other positive values. I myself think that's the best way to communicate. And I think the more that that can get across, the more that whatever you think of a particular candidate, you can say, ah, I think there is a space for us to make sure that we're living in a unpolluted world, that we can habitate and, you know, live with others to prosper.
Hannah McCarthy
So a savvy administration against a savvy environmentalist movement, one promising a brighter future via unfettered or at least less fettered industry. And the other via a less polluted planet. We often talk about finding consensus, using that as the foundation for constructive and net positive change in America. Most people might be able to agree that they want to be safe, healthy, fed, clothed and sheltered. That they don't want to fear for their or their children's futures. That they want their communities to thrive. That they don't want to worry about money. That might be some kind of American consensus, but agreeing on how to get there when the potential paths diverge so drastically in this America, that might be easier said than done. And at least for the next four years, our chief executive has told us what path he plans to take. We'll just have to see where that leads and what Americans think about it.
Nick Capodice
This episode is produced by Hannah McCarthy with Marina Henke and Me Nick Capodice. Our senior producers Christina Phillips and our executive producer is Rebecca LaVoy. Music. In this episode by Diana Particle House, Craig Weaver, Lucas Got Lucky, Mind Me, mindless, Timothy Infinite, Sven Lindvall, and Zorro. You can get everything else Civics 101 has ever made and reach out to us at our website civics101podcast.org. And if you like us, consider leaving us a review. Throw us some stars. You can do that on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your audio. Civics 101 is a production of NPR New Hampshire Public Radio.