I am listening to Jimi Hendrix and I'm trying to think about predictions I'm willing to make about environmental regulation under President Trump. Both Don Trump and I both lived in New York City in the early 1970s. This was a time when Manhattan was dirty, dangerous and disillusioned. Real estate prices were low. Don Trump has made huge amounts of $ as Manhattan has become a more livable "green city". He knows what the capitalization effect is and knows that "location,location, location" mantra of real estate both means a property's proximity to employment and cultural centers and quality of life hubs such as central park. This logic implies that President Trump will not gut regulations that protect the air and water. I actually think he will invest in increasing our nation's climate resilience because he owns so much coastal real estate! Self interest will nudge him to invest in adaptation! (sounds familiar?).
I think that President Trump will allow land owners in various areas to have greater freedom over whether they preserve them or whether they "drill baby drill" for energy. I bet that he will privatize some federal lands and allow more drilling on them. I do not believe that he will be an active carbon mitigation president.
If a national leader pursues the local green agenda but does little to tackle climate change, what report card grade does the Sierra Club give him? A "B" or a "D"?
A couple of wild cards. As we have learned from the case of Flint, Michigan --- there are poor older cities that have a declining capital stock but do not have the tax revenue base to modernize. What will the Trump Team do in this case? The durable capital is creating negative pollution externalities as it slowly rusts and falls apart. In their past work on durable capital, Glaeser and Gyourko (2005 JPE) pointed out that home prices fall in such areas and this compensates people for living there but do people have a Rawlsian right to a basic level of clean water? Who should pay for this? Does Trump's team believe in Fiscal Federalism or will the poor cities receive nothing from his Administration in terms of spatial transfers?
Note that this case bundles environmental justice and spatial redistribution as the rich people in New York City and San Fran and LA would be taxed to pay for better infrastructure in Flint MI.