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 With Tony Abbott in charge a progressive carbon tax was repealed.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?
Related Posts
Once Again Global Action To Mitigate Climate Change Is At Risk
Electrified Thermochemical Reactor Could Revolutionize and Decarbonize Heavy Industry
Two Space Stories: One That Matters and One That Does Not
Space News Bites – Part 1
Combination of More Rain and Hotter Temperatures is Making Crops Like Corn Sweat
A New Look At The Viability Of Solar Roads
Putting Fluoride In Community Water Supplies Is Being Questioned
Sustainable Business Practices For A Changing World
Futurists examine trends, drivers, inhibitors and alternative scenarios in attempts to identify and craft plans for preferred futures an, or alternatively to avoid worst-case scenarios.
Putting on my optimistic progressive hat, I see the antics of Trump, the Tea Party, and the GOP overall as giving progressives a chance of not only winning the White House and Senate, but also taking control of the House and down-ballot state races. With that, if it were to happen, overturning Citizens United seems quite possible, was does campaign finance reform, redrawing gerrymandered voting districts, and implementing other programs designed to progress our nation forward, rather than holding it back. I frankly can’t see any way to make America great again by tearing down what made it great in the first place.
Hi Wayne, If I weren’t an atheist I would say “from your lips to God’s ears.”
The GOP’s tipping point may very well be about to happen if Trump secures the nomination. As a progressive from north of the American border one hopes that sense prevails among the electorate come the fall. A Trump presidential candidate may very well lead to the GOP that we know today crashing and burning.
Can Citizens’ United be reversed? Can civil discourse become the standard of debate? Can government once more legislate? Can representative democracy be wrested from those who have skewed it to their own purpose?
I agree with your last statement, you can’t have a great America if you tear down what makes it great. Let’s hope the country can break out of this political miasma and once more demonstrate global leadership based on the finest of those principles that led to its establishment in the first place.
Len, Please give us your opinion on
a) whether the EPA and NOAA are spending their budget wisely.
b) whether climate change (which has been a cyclic phenomenon as far back as we can discern) can be moderated by current social and technology intelligence.
c) how climate change relates to global warming and CO2 levels.
d) when was the last time the earth shifted its inclination of rotation to is elliptical plane.
I don’t think my opinion matters. Are you asking about scientific proof to verify your points b), c) and d)? There is plenty of research and data result reports that address these. As for spending by the EPA and NOAA, the government in the United States (I’m Canadian) should seriously increase funding to these important bodies to continue to provide accurate monitoring of weather and climate trends. NOAA does legions of science that benefits the entire world. I’d be happy to see their budget double what it is today. That’s an opinion.
As for the latter part of your point b), can social behavior and technological information gathering help us to address climate change? In my opinion education can alter social behavior. Technology can provide us with the information which can serve to educate. Cutting CO2 emissions going forward is the one recognizable variable that correlates most closely to increases in global atmospheric temperatures. CO2 is also the common variable associated with changing pH levels in the world ocean, a common concern that is impacting sea life from the bottom of the food chain to the top.
You can type “climate change” and “CO2” into the search window on my 21stcentech.com site to read additional science based content to better understand the correlation between global warming and CO2. You can also type in “axial wobble” in the search field to read about other climate change influencing variables from our geological past.