Tuesday, April 22, 2025

 

EU Giving Up Putin’s Pipelines for Trump’s Tankers Full of LNG

When the going gets tough, the EU buys American gas. Or at least that’s the emerging strategy as Brussels preps a shiny new road map to wean itself off Russian fossil fuels—while simultaneously dangling a $350 billion olive branch in front of President Trump in hopes he’ll holster the tariff threats.

European Council President Antonio Costa has told Bloomberg this week that the May 6 plan—to be imminently released—will send a clear political signal to energy companies: start sourcing more LNG from the good ol’ US of A. Translation? Europe wants to swap Putin’s pipelines for Trump’s tankers—but only if the price is right.

This whole dance is happening as the EU tries to fix two problems at once. First, it still needs to unwind long-term gas contracts with Russia—awkward since some countries (Hungary) won’t sign off on outright sanctions. Second, Trump is demanding that Europe close the trade gap by purchasing U.S. energy—now.

His solution? Fork over $350 billion for LNG and we’ll call it even.

That’s no small ask. For context, the EU imported about 75 million tons of LNG last year. Trump wants them to add another 40 million tons on top of that.

To make this work, the EU is floating the idea of pooling member demand into a big, bulk-buy basket to score a better price. Whether U.S. producers can—or will—sell that much gas at European-friendly prices remains to be seen. Especially when some of them are already grumbling that the notion of “energy dominance” hasn’t exactly paid off lately.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com

 

China Axes Imports of Most U.S. Commodities in Escalating Trade War

  • China's LNG imports from the U.S. fell to zero in March.

  • Imports of other U.S. commodities, including wheat and cotton, also saw significant declines.

  • The reductions are attributed to escalating trade and tariff tensions between the U.S. and China.

China slashed its imports of many U.S. energy and agricultural commodities in March amid intensifying trade and tariff tensions with the United States, which are set to further reduce Chinese purchases of American goods this month and in the coming months.

China’s LNG imports from the United States crashed to zero in March as China slapped tariffs on American LNG and other energy products, making these uneconomical for Chinese buyers.

Last year, U.S. LNG represented about 5% of China’s imports of the super-chilled fuel.

Similarly to non-existent LNG, China did not import any wheat from the U.S. in March, per Chinese customs data cited by Bloomberg on Monday.

Chinese cotton imports from the United States plummeted by 90% in March from a year earlier, which purchases of U.S. corn slumped to a five-year low, according to the data.

Among agricultural products, soybean imports into China from the U.S. rose to buck the general trend, as Chinese buyers typically import soybeans from the United States early in the year until the South American harvest becomes available in the autumn, or in the springtime in the northern hemisphere.

Among energy products, imports of U.S. liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) declined by 36%, and purchases of metallurgical coal used in steelmaking plunged by 62% in March from a year earlier, per the Chinese customs data cited by Bloomberg.

Chinese crude oil purchases, on the other hand, rose by 25%, amid higher overall crude imports into China.

Many U.S. cargoes may have also been contracted before the tariff war erupted and right after the uncertainties about Russian supply in January, following the U.S. sanctions on Russian trade. These sanctions, one of the Biden Administration’s last sanctions moves, roiled the oil market flows for several weeks until the supply chain of non-sanctioned tankers reshuffled to service mostly China.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com


This Record Energy Trade Between The US and China Just Collapsed

  • China’s retaliatory tariffs now target U.S. propane, a key petrochemical feedstock, which had seen record exports.

  • Analysts warn that China and the U.S. are interdependent when it comes to propane.

  • With China cutting back on U.S. propane imports and limited alternatives for export, domestic propane supply may rise, potentially lowering prices for American consumers,

That energy commodities will be the first to suffer from the trade spat between the United States and China was only to be expected. As tension—and tariff rates—rise, energy commodity trade has plummeted. And it has spread to one major U.S. export segment: petrochemical feedstock.

Last year, propane exports from the United States hit a record high since records began back in 1973. These exports had been rising for 17 years straight, the Energy Information Administration reported last month, as natural gas production boomed—and as demand for petrochemicals from Asia increased, especially from China.

Indeed, per the EIA, U.S. propane exports last year rose 13% on the previous year thanks to higher demand in Asia. More specifically, however, “Chinese consumption accounts for most of the growth in U.S. exports to Asia; U.S. propane exports to China grew by 40% in 2024.”

Now, the tariff war has reached propane trade, with China including the propylene feedstock in its list of goods subject to retaliatory tariffs, alongside liquefied natural gas and crude oil. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that propane prices in the United States had shed 15% since the tariff tit-for-tat began, and that prices for the tankers that carry the commodity to export markets had taken a dive as well.

As already noted, it is not the only commodity that has been affected by the tariffs. Indeed, China has stopped buying U.S. liquefied natural gas—which has proven a boon for Europe—and it was also set to stop buying U.S. crude oil. Yet, when it comes to propane, there is a twist.

“China cannot replace U.S. propane and the U.S. cannot replace the Chinese propane demand,” Julian Renton, an analyst with energy research company East Daley Analytics, told the WSJ. “These two markets are linked and they won’t be able to unlink.” The twist is that since the last time the United States and China got into a tariff war, China had a lot less petrochemical capacity and, consequently, demand for propane. That was in 2018, during Trump’s first term. Now, this capacity has grown considerably as demand for petrochemicals increases. Many analysts, in fact, predict that the petrochemicals sector will replace transport as the biggest driver of crude oil demand in an electrified future.

China is at the forefront of this change. A top petrochemical producer, its energy majors are preparing for an environment where petrol and diesel will not be the main products that the market needs. Indeed, last month, the National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s central planner, advised refiners to boost petrochemical production at the expense of fuels.

“We will advance petrochemical industries toward fine chemical industries by cutting the output of refined petroleum products, increasing the output of chemical products, and enhancing quality,” the NDRC said in its annual report.

China’s demand for fuels has been undermined by the surge in EV sales in recent years and the introduction of LNG-powered trucks, which may have led to a peak in diesel demand, according to Sinopec. The state energy major said that diesel demand may have peaked back in 2019, and gasoline demand could have reached its highest ever in 2023. Yet China’s demand for petrochemical feedstock is rising—and this is not only a problem for China

China is the second-largest importer of U.S. propane—and it is the largest importer of U.S. ethane, another petrochemical commodity. Per data from the EIA cited by Fortune, China takes in almost half of U.S. global ethane exports. In propane, it accounts for about 360,000 bpd in imports, while the rest of the world takes in 1.5 million bpd.

“The two industries need each other,” Kristen Holmquist, RBN Energy managing director for analytics, told Fortune. “The U.S. needs to be able to send its propane to China. For a large portion of it, the propane has nowhere else to go except China.” China, meanwhile, may have an alternative supplier just north of the United States.

The Energy Information Administration reported earlier this month that Canada’s propane exports, just like the United States’, have been on a steady rise over the past few years—especially to Asia. In fact, the EIA said, last year, Canadian exports of propane to Asia made up over 40% of total global exports of the commodity. These exports mostly go to Japan and South Korea, but with the tariff war still raging on, this may change.

Meanwhile, Americans heating their homes with propane are in for some good news. There are not enough alternative export markets for all the propane that the U.S. used to sell to China. This means that the supply situation at home is about to swing into a surplus—if it hasn’t already—and that surplus will drive prices further down. There’s always a silver lining, after all.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 

Are AI Energy Concerns Overblown?

  • The rapid growth of artificial intelligence is leading to a significant increase in energy consumption by data centers, raising concerns about the strain on global power grids and the ability to meet this growing demand.

  • There is a debate among experts regarding the severity of AI's energy impact, with some arguing it's an overblown concern due to potential technological
  •  advancements, while others warn of serious consequences for energy security and climate goals.

  • Governments and tech leaders are grappling with how to address the energy needs of AI while balancing economic competitiveness, environmental responsibility, and energy security, leading to differing policy approaches and priorities.

Last week, tech moguls pleaded with the United States Congress to ramp up energy production to meet soaring energy demand driven by artificial intelligence. The already considerable energy footprint of data centers is sharply on the rise, and is projected to keep gaining steam in the coming years. As a result, industry insiders are lobbying congress to ramp up energy production so that the U.S. tech sector can stay competitive with China. 

“We need energy in all forms,” said Eric Schmidt, a former Google CEO who now leads a think tank focused on technology and security called the Special Competitive Studies Project. “Renewable, nonrenewable, whatever. It needs to be there, and it needs to be there quickly.”

Supplying enough energy to meet AI’s growing needs without threatening domestic energy security is a bipartisan priority, but there are – of course – some partisan disagreements on how to get there. In 2023, Joe Biden signed an executive order with sweeping policy goals” governing the development and use of AI safely and responsibly.” When he entered office earlier this year, Donald Trump almost immediately overturned the order, saying its “onerous” mandates would “threaten American technological leadership.” Instead, Trump is leading a charge with less emphasis on responsible development and more stress on “securing and advancing American AI dominance.”

An ongoing global AI arms race will require staggering amounts of electricity. In 2024, data centers accounted for roughly 1.5% of global electricity consumption. And the International Energy Agency projects that this energy footprint is set to double by just 2030. “The IEA’s models project that data centres will use 945 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2030, roughly equivalent to the current annual electricity consumption of Japan,” Nature recently reported. “By comparison, data centres consumed 415 TWh in 2024, roughly 1.5% of the world’s total electricity consumption,” the scientific outlet continued.

Already, this sharp increase is placing strain on power grids around the globe. Many countries, including Ireland, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, don’t have the energy production capacity needed to  power their already-planned data centers. And in the United States, a recent scientific study found that the government would have to invest billions of dollars in generation and transmission capacity over the next few years to meet demand. And if the government falls short, Americans can expect their energy costs to go up by as much as 70 percent.

All of this energy demand growth also threatens to seriously derail global climate accords if it results in increased fossil fuel production. Google has already admitted that powering its AI ambitions may be fundamentally incompatible with its goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2030. In 2024,  the company reported that its carbon emissions had increased by nearly 50% in the last five years. 

“When you look at the numbers, it is staggering,” Jason Shaw, chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, an electricity regulator, told the Washington Post last year. “It makes you scratch your head and wonder how we ended up in this situation. How were the projections that far off? This has created a challenge like we have never seen before.”

However, some experts say that concerns over AI crashing global power grids and obliterating all hopes of achieving global decarbonization goals are overblown, and that all the panic around them is a classic Malthusian fallacy. There is a global race to make AI more efficient, and some believe that technological advances will drastically reduce strain to global power grids. 

As the IBM sustainability chief Christina Shim wrote in a recent op-ed for Fortune, “Raising a flag over AI’s energy use makes sense. It identifies an important challenge and can help rally us toward a collective solution. But we should balance the weight of the challenge with the incredible, rapid innovation that is happening.”

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

Firms Cancel $8 Billion in Renewables Investment on Trump Policies

CUTTING NOSE TO SPITE FACE DEPT.

  • U.S. clean energy firms scrapped or downsized $7.9 billion worth of projects in Q1 2025.

  • Over $6 billion in canceled projects and 10,000 lost jobs have occurred in GOP-held districts as a result.

  • Despite some ongoing projects, new investment pledges have slowed dramatically.

Rising market and policy uncertainties forced companies to cancel $8 billion in investments in U.S. clean energy projects in the first quarter of the year.

In a dramatic surge in cancellations of projects amid the chilling effects of the Trump Administration’s trade policy and attempts to repeal part of the green energy incentives, companies have withdrawn $7.9 billion in investments since January, clean energy business group E2 said in a monthly update this week.

The value of the canceled investments in the first quarter alone was more than three times the total investments canceled over the previous 30 months, E2’s project tracker showed.

Companies have grown increasingly concerned about the future of certain federal tax credits for clean energy as well as the implications of President Trump’s trade and tariff policies on the supply chain for green projects.

As a result, 16 new large-scale factories and other projects were canceled, closed, or downsized in the first three months of 2025, “amid escalating market uncertainty and as Congress begins debate on repealing the tax credits and other incentives,” said the E2 business group.

This would affect an estimated 7,800 clean energy jobs that were canceled over the past three months—a number higher than the combined number of jobs lost to cancellations in the whole 2022-2024 period.

Announcements of green energy investments haven’t stopped entirely. Businesses in March announced more than $1.6 billion in investments for new solar, EV, and grid and transmission equipment factories across six states.

However, the cancellations this year vastly outnumber any pledges for new investments, and the rate of cancellations has increased dramatically since President Trump’s inauguration.

In February and March alone, 13 projects and over $5 billion in connected investments were canceled or downsized— including Bosch canceling a $200 million hydrogen fuel cell factory in South Carolina and Freyr Battery canceling a $2.5 billion battery factory in Georgia.

Republican congressional districts, which have benefitted the most from Biden’s clean energy tax credits, also are seeing the most cancellations. More than $6 billion and over 10,000 jobs have been canceled in Republican districts so far, E2 said.

“Clean energy companies still want to invest in America, but uncertainty over Trump administration policies and the future of critical clean energy tax credits are taking a clear toll,” E2’s Communications Director, Michael Timberlake, said in a statement.

“If this self-inflicted and unnecessary market uncertainty continues, we’ll almost certainly see more projects paused, more construction halted, and more job opportunities disappear.”

The Trump Administration’s scorn toward clean energy is sending chills in the industry and while projects under construction are progressing, commitments to new plans are falling off a cliff.

For example, despite a relatively stable short-term pipeline of U.S. wind power projects under construction, the five-year outlook of America’s wind capacity additions has been significantly limited due to the Trump Administration’s energy policies, Wood Mackenzie said in a report last week

The energy consultancy slashed its five-year forecast of new capacity installations to just 45 gigawatts (GW), down by 40% from the previously expected gross additions of 75.8 GW, due to U.S. policy changes and heightened economic uncertainty.

“Current projects that are under construction will likely complete, but announced projects will face greater challenges as developers reassess their strategies and project economics,” said Stephen Maldonado, research analyst at Wood Mackenzie.

But this week showed that even projects under construction in President Trump’s most-hated sector – offshore wind – are not spared.

The Department of the Interior ordered the suspension of construction works at the Equinor-led Empire Wind offshore project in New York, saying the project may have been approved by the previous administration without an appropriate environmental assessment.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

Australia’s Race to Develop a Critical Minerals Sector


  • Australia is developing its critical minerals sector to support the global green transition.

  • The government has launched strategies and tax incentives to attract investment and boost production.

  • Australia holds significant deposits of critical minerals, including lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements.

Australia has been developing its critical mineral sector in recent years, aiming to become a major producer and processor of the high-demand minerals and metals needed to support a global green transition. In addition to launching a national strategy and providing billions in funding for the sector, the government recently established a tax incentives law for critical minerals that is expected to attract greater investment in the sector. 

The demand for critical minerals is expected to increase dramatically over the coming decades as countries worldwide use them to power a global green transition. Common uses for critical minerals include the manufacturing of batteries, electronics, microchips, and solar photovoltaics. Australia is home to some of the largest recoverable critical mineral deposits on earth, including high-quality cobalt, lithium, manganese, rare earth elements, tungsten, and vanadium.

In December 2023, the Australian government launched the Critical Minerals Strategy 2023–2030, which provides a framework to develop critical minerals production, processing, and supply chains in Australia. It is expected to support job creation and boost economic growth. It encourages collaboration across communities, industry, investors, the research and innovation sector, states and territories, and international partners. The strategy focuses on six key areas: developing strategically important projects, attracting investment and building international partnerships, First Nations engagement and benefit sharing, promoting Australia as a world leader in ESG performance, unlocking investment in enabling infrastructure and services and growing a skilled workforce.

In 2021, the government established the Critical Minerals Facility, with $1.3 billion in funding to address the funding gap in the country’s critical minerals sector. It has since added a further $1.3 billion to the scheme. The facility provides financing for projects that align with the government’s Critical Minerals Strategy.  

In February, the Australian parliament passed laws that provide production tax breaks for critical minerals and renewable hydrogen to support national energy transition plans and help decrease reliance on China for its supply. The law offers $4.4 billion in tax incentives of 10 percent for the processing and refining costs for 31 critical minerals from 2028 to 2040 for up to 10 years per project. The Resources Minister Madeleine King stated, “By processing more of these minerals here in Australia, we will create jobs and diversify global supply chains.”

Australia currently has a Labour government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. However, the opposition Liberal-National Coalition is vying for power in the May general election, and it has a very different stance on energy. The Coalition told the gas industry in April that it planned to give gas the same status as a critical minerals if it came into power, which would provide the industry with access to $3.6 billion in export finance. 

Susan McDonald, a Queensland senator, stated that the party will ensure that natural gas “remains a critical part of the Australian economy for decades”. She added, “I can announce today that to boost investment, a Coalition government will elevate gas to the same status as a critical mineral… This will ensure gas projects are able to apply for funding from the $4 billion (US $3.6 billion) critical minerals facility.” McDonald went on to say, “This will ensure gas projects, so critical to our national and international security, are able to access specialised teams within the department of resources to support their projects.” In March, the opposition leader Peter Dutton promised to create an east coast gas reservation scheme, aimed at reducing energy prices. 

By contrast, Albanese aims to continue supporting a transition away from oil, gas, and coal if re-elected, particularly in the wake of the recent Trump tariffs. He plans to increase critical mineral mining and processing activities to boost Australia’s trade appeal with the U.S., as the North American giant attempts to reduce dependency on China for its critical minerals and green energy components. The PM is expected to unveil plans on how he will accelerate the expansion of the industry in the coming weeks. 

U.S. President Donald Trump recently announced sweeping tariffs on imports from countries worldwide, with 25 percent on steel and aluminium and 10 percent on most Australian goods, except for pharmaceuticals and some critical minerals. Trump has been back and forth on his tariffs, introducing them and then later pausing them for extended periods. World leaders have responded to the threat of tariffs by diversifying their trade partners and attempting to ensure the future of their trade security in a range of ways. For Albanese, this means making Australia a critical minerals hub. 

Australia’s Labour government has supported the development of the country’s critical minerals industry, with significant sectoral growth expected over the coming decades. However, this expansion could depend heavily on whether Albanese wins the May election or if the Liberal–National Coalition takes power, putting more of an emphasis on natural gas development. 

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Tata Steel Invests Billions in Port Talbot Overhaul 

TO AVOID NATIONALIZATION



  • Tata Steel has announced a £1.2 billion project to transform its Port Talbot site, replacing traditional blast furnaces with electric arc furnaces for green steel production.

  • A new pickling line with increased capacity is being installed at the Port Talbot plant, expected to be commissioned by late 2027.

  • The upgrades at Port Talbot are part of Tata Steel's broader strategy to modernize and transition to more sustainable steelmaking practices.

Tata Steel recently signed an agreement to install a new pickling line at its Port Talbot site in Wales. The steel industry leader’s latest move will offer 50% more capacity than the existing line. According to the company’s April 9 announcement, the new equipment will have an annual capacity of 1.8 million metric tons and will employ up to 220 people during construction.

The UK Steel Industry Should See the New Line by 2028

A source within the company told MetalMiner that Tata expects to commission the line in Q4 2027. They also stated that the previous pickling line had an annual capacity of 1.2 million metric tons. Pickling lines use acid baths to descale hot-rolled coil and remove other impurities before the material undergoes cold rolling.

French company Clecim will design and supply the mechanical process equipment for the line, while a Swedish company will provide the electrification and automation technology, Tata said. “With the pre-engineering phase completed, both companies are now moving forward with detailed engineering,” the company added.

One Part of Port Talbot’s Multi-Billion-Dollar Makeover

The work is part of Tata Steel’s £1.2 billion ($1.56 billion) project to transition Port Talbot to green steelmaking by replacing its two blast furnaces and converter shop with two electric arc furnaces, or EAFs.

Tata hopes to commission the new furnaces by 2027, and expects they will have a listed crude steel capacity of 3.5 million metric tons per year—more than 30% lower than the 5 million metric tons previously produced via the blast furnace/basic oxygen furnace route.

However, in 2022, the plant produced less than half that volume, pouring just 2.2 million metric tons. Tata also shut down Port Talbot’s blast furnaces and closed the converter shop in 2024. The company planned to bring in slab from other sites to continue rolling operations while replacement work on the hot end was underway.

In addition to replacing the blast furnaces and basic oxygen converter with EAF technology, other planned upgrades at Port Talbot include installing the new pickling line, upgrading the continuous slab caster and modernizing the hot strip mill.

By Christopher Rivituso



'I served on the Deepwater Horizon inquiry commission. Trump has us headed for a new disaster' 
Terry Garcia


Cuts to science, environmental and safety agencies are a rejection of hard-won knowledge gained from studying the disaster that occurred 15 years ago

Terry Garcia
Sun 20 Apr 2025
THE GUARDIAN UK

Last month, I joined nearly 500 former and current employees of National Geographic, where I was executive vice-president and chief science and exploration officer for 17 years, urging the institution to take a public stance against the Trump administration’s reckless attacks on science. Our letter pointed out that the programs being dismantled are “imperative for the success of our country’s economy and are the foundation of our progress and wellbeing. They make us safer, stronger and more prosperous.” We warned that gutting them is a recipe for disaster.

In the face of this danger, none of us can remain silent.

I say this from the unique perspective of having been closely involved in the two most significant environmental disasters in US history: the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills. Fifteen years ago this Sunday, an enormous explosion tore through the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and unleashed an environmental catastrophe that devastated the Gulf of Mexico. The explosion triggered the release of more than 3m barrels of oil that polluted 1,300 miles of coastline from Louisiana to Florida. Eleven lives were lost, ecosystems were ravaged and the economic toll soared into the billions.


I served on the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, which investigated the root causes of the disaster, and before that I led the federal government’s implementation of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan. I have witnessed first-hand the human and economic toll exacted by these events. Men and women who, for generations, had made a living from the sea were suddenly confronted with the possibility that an entire way of life would be lost.

Despite such painful lessons of the past, we find ourselves once again hurtling toward disaster. The Trump administration’s personnel and programmatic cuts at science, environmental and safety agencies, and the wholesale rollback of environmental regulations, threaten to unravel decades of progress in safeguarding our country. These actions aren’t just misguided – they’re a dangerous rejection of the hard-won knowledge gained from former crises and a gamble we cannot afford to take.

Among the many alarming moves by the Trump administration are plans to weaken offshore drilling safety measures implemented in response to the Deepwater Horizon calamity, such as the reversal of the Biden administration’s ban on drilling in sensitive coastal areas, including the Arctic, and the closure of regional offices responsible for oil spill response. Eliminating these measures demonstrates a callous disregard for lessons learned at a staggering human and economic cost.
We cannot allow the cautionary tales of Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon to fade into history, only to be repeated when the next horror strikes


Disturbingly, these actions are but a small part of a larger effort to weaken environmental regulation and oversight under the guise of restoring government efficiency. Take the recent rollback of dozens of Environmental Protection Agency health and safety regulations and the reported plan to eliminate the agency’s scientific research office. The administration claims these moves will unleash US energy and lower the cost of living, when in fact the only thing they’re guaranteed to achieve is undermining fundamental protections that keep our air and water clean. The mass layoffs and plans to dismember the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), where I was deputy administrator from 1997 to the end of 1999 and prior to that its general counsel, have nothing to do with cost savings – they’re an outright assault on science. Targeting programs that monitor ocean health, track ecosystem changes and study climate impacts – essential to understanding and mitigating looming threats – will leave us blind to and defenseless against the dangers ahead.

Cuts to science funding amplify the harms, jeopardizing our ability to innovate solutions, assess risks and respond effectively to crises. In 2010, we lacked even basic data about ocean conditions in areas around the ruptured Deepwater Horizon well. This absence of critical knowledge hindered response and recovery efforts, including understanding the impacts of using oil dispersants in the deep ocean. After the spill, robust government support for science enabled researchers to develop new response and cleanup technologies, better understand long-term ecological impacts, and provide critical insights that helped shape environmental and safety policy. Without government support, these advances would have been impossible – and they will be impossible in the future as funding is slashed.

The Trump administration’s insistence that its actions will reduce bureaucratic burdens or spur economic growth is false and deliberately misleading. It’s gaslighting on a national scale. The only sure result is that the burden of risk will be shifted on to communities, small businesses and ordinary Americans. The destruction of habitats and livelihoods is not an abstract consequence of environmental disasters. They devastate families, cripple economies, poison food supplies and leave communities struggling for decades. Businesses are boarded up, and community members suffer life-altering health consequences. After the Deepwater Horizon spill, losses in commercial and recreational fishing, tourism and property values amounted to tens of billions of dollars; cleanup and restoration costs exceeded $60bn – far surpassing what preventive measures would have required.

Trump and his industry allies will paint such an event as an unforeseeable tragedy, a terrible mishap, a sad accident. Don’t buy it.

As we mark this somber anniversary, we cannot allow the cautionary tales of Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon to fade into history, only to be repeated when the next horror strikes. Science and environmental protections are our first line of defense against catastrophe. Now is the time to demand that our government stop the madness and commit to strong environmental and safety regulations, rigorous scientific research, and adequate funding for the agencies tasked with protecting our health and shared resources. The price of ignoring science and dismantling regulations is far too high.

Terry Garcia was National Geographic’s executive vice-president and chief science and exploration officer for 17 years. He also served as the assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and deputy administrator of Noaa, as well as its general counsel