What Happens to Climate Change Efforts if the Republicans Win The White House?

March 17, 2016 – Should Donald Trump become the next President of the United States then all bets are off in dealing with climate change for at least four years. What does that mean for the science of climate change? What does that mean for our planet?

One can expect that funding for climate studies will be slashed by a Trump or Ted Cruz-led regime. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will see its Clean Power Plan quashed. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will see its budgets decreased. Planning and budgeting for the replacement of aging Earth-observation satellites studying sea level rise and other aspects of climate science will be put on hold or cancelled. Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific-coast drilling for oil and gas will be back on. And coal-fired power plants will no longer be on the chopping block.

Will scientists sit idly by and watch this happen? That’s an interesting question. On a smaller scale Australia went through a similar experience after a change in government. With Tony Abbott in charge  a progressive carbon tax was repealed. Government departments researching climate change were closed. Australia set minimal targets for carbon reduction paying lip service to international attempts to combat climate change. But Australia’s scientists rebelled, taking it upon themselves to continue the research and reporting on the continent’s changing climate. Crowd funding replaced government money. Eventually Abbott was turfed and replaced by Malcolm Turnbull who hasn’t reinstated the carbon tax but at least affirms a belief that climate change is real and human caused.

Should America’s scientists be contingency planning similar actions as those of their Australian colleagues in the event of a Republican presidency? Should they be raising money to defend themselves when Republican witch hunts start to identify the “climate science criminals” among us like the Red Scare of the 1950s? One would hope so because current GOP leadership has clearly stated its plans to eliminate all significant American national climate policies. For the Republicans, climate change isn’t a national issue. It’s a Democratic Party issue.

How far the Republicans have moved from their environmental interventionist past under President Nixon and George H. W. Bush. Nixon who created the EPA, and Bush who invented cap and trade mechanisms for dealing with atmospheric pollutants, both listened to scientists.

So what explains the behavioral shift? Money!

The money from fossil fuel companies is lining the pockets of Republican politicians to block progress on the climate file. Delay to maximize profits is the fossil fuel industry strategy. This is the same strategy employed by Big Tobacco in its fight against scientific evidence that its products caused cancer. And interestingly enough, the climate science deniers who publish anti-climate science bromides and hold pseudo-climate science conventions, are people with roots in trying to block action against tobacco companies. They are working from the same playbook.

In the last few days the current Chairman of the House Science Committee, a Republican congressman from Texas, Lamar Smith, accused NOAA of “misrepresenting research” requesting the emails of scientists involved in a 2014 study. His objective was to uncover the conspiracy behind research on temperature observations. Smith’s agenda is the GOPs. He is quoted as stating, “Instead of hyping a climate change agenda, NOAA should focus its efforts on producing sound science and improving methods of data collection…..Unfortunately, climate alarmism often takes priority at NOAA.” His Democratic opponents on the House Science Committee have referred to Smith’s agenda as a “grand conspiracy to falsify data.”

Scientists need to make the same point and loudly. The politicizing of climate change by the Republican Party is putting the citizens of the United States at risk as well as the rest of the planet. A Republican in the White House will diminish and delay sound science-based policy. In four years time the cost to address the impact of climate change will increase 40% for each decade of delay. Who will bear the cost? Mexico?