Trump Administration Moves to Limit 'Emissions'—Yes, the Word
Growing list of banned words at the Energy Department include "climate change," "green," and "decarbonization" according to reports.
An Energy Department email meant for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has laid out the latest additions to a "list of words to avoid." This is according to Politico, which obtained the email after it was issued late last week. The list includes the words "climate change," "green," and "decarbonization," amongst others.
According to Politico, these instructions apply to both public-facing statements and internal documents. What's more, it would also extend to reports, funding requests, and briefings. In addition to the above words, EERE is forbidding officials from using the term "emissions" as it has a negative implication. This on the back of the EPA working to deregulate emissions rules. So, some emissions are bad: just the written ones.
All of this falls in line with the Trump administration's approach to renewable energy sources. Last week the US president gave a speech at the United Nations where he referred to climate change—and the acts meant to combat it—as " the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world." In contrast, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that "human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming."
Energy secretary Chris Wright also cancelled $13 billion in renewable energy project funding last week. "If you can’t rock on your own after 33 years, maybe that’s not a business that’s going places," said Wright in response to the solar and wind incentives the One Big Beautiful Bill act will end. For reference, the Trump administration is granting $40 billion in new subsidies for oil and gas.
In defence of DOE, spokesperson Ben Dietderich told Politico that the deparment has not actually prohibited the use of all of these words. “We’ll look into the validity of the email and if necessary take steps to correct any emails perceived as official direction,” Dietderich said in a statement to Politco on Monday.
Become an AutoGuide insider. Get the latest from the automotive world first by subscribing to our newsletter here.
Kyle began his automotive obsession before he even started school, courtesy of a remote control Porsche and various LEGO sets. He later studied advertising and graphic design at Humber College, which led him to writing about cars (both real and digital). He is now a proud member of the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada (AJAC), where he was the Journalist of the Year runner-up for 2021.
More by Kyle Patrick
Comments
Join the conversation
Human-caused “climate change” IS a huge con on humanity, just not THE largest. It’s a way to get governments to pry their greedy hands into people’s bank accounts. In the 70’s they wanted to scare people with an impending new ice age. That scare faded, so they came up with acid rain will melt everything. Once that became passé, they came up with global warming. When that was proven wrong they settled on the immensely vague term of “climate change”. Under this new guise, any natural event (or even unnatural things such as man-made fires) were due to “climate change”. Yes, the climate changes naturally. Some years there are more or less events than other years. But it has NEVER been proven that the climate changes due to human actions. But governments use this term to penalize companies and charge people fees combat climate change while having no effect on the climate, but just making people poorer.
I'm from California and saw the changes Governor Ronald Regan did for the air quality in Los Angeles (he formed CARB). During the 70's the top of City Hall was difficult to see due the thickness of the Smog. The contrast to today is dramatic.
But I've also stood in the middle of Yosemite Valley. Looking up I imaged an ice sheet 3,000 feet over my head. For sure we have an effect on our environment, but we are nothing compared to Mother Nature.
Having lived through "smog alerts" I think clean air is important. But, I vote "a con" too. Well, until the expert climatologist/meteorologist can accurately predict if it will rain and the temperature on this day next year. Seems like currently they can only semi-accurately predict 10 days out with their models/knowledge. The rest is based on predictable weather cycles.