Trump’s Scorched Earth Policy

Donald Trump does not believe that climate change is real, does not believe that it is in direct correlation with man’s activities on this planet, and is determined to do all that he possibly can to continue a glutinous, fossil-fuel driven lifestyle for the U.S., one that is largely unpopular among scholars, scientists, and 70% of the population of the U.S.

In 1961, NASA established the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which delved into not just planetary research but also atmospheric science. By the late 1980s, NASA’s extensive contributions to the science of global warming made the agency a major player in the climate change narrative.  Dr. James E. Hansen directed the Goddard Institute for Space Studies from 1981 to 2013, and he is credited with getting Congress to pay attention to the issue of global warming in 1988. Dr. Hansen’s research findings sounded the alarm about global warming as it related to the greenhouse effect and pollution. The expert congressional testimony presented by Dr. Hansen and his colleagues from NASA opened up the climate change narrative. This narrative was quickly embraced by the media and certain members of Congress who saw the need for a plan of action to slow global warming.

There can be no doubt among rational thinkers that human-caused climate change is real and is threatening the future of our planet.  No. Doubt. Climate change is not, despite what a certain would-be president says, a Chinese hoax perpetuated in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.  Think about that one for a minute.  It makes absolutely no sense.  About as much sense as the tooth fairy, in fact.  Yet he continues with his fantasy and has plans to reverse the actions that the Obama administration has taken in order to work with other nations in an effort to reduce emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution.

To this end, Trump has announced plans to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa, calling their valuable research ‘politicized science’. Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century. Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring. We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research. Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.”

There is a problem with that line of thinking.

We live on the planet earth and every nation involved in trying to slow or even reverse the damages of climate change rely on the research and information provided by NASA.  The data that the earth sciences division collects is used for much more than providing information on climate change.  It is also critical for tracking hurricanes, coastal erosion, glacial melting, land use, wildfires, and even the approach of solar storms. Federal government scientists have been unnerved by Trump’s dismissal of climate science and are concerned that their work will be sidelined as part of a new pro-fossil fuels and deregulation agenda. Climate scientists at other organizations expressed dismay at the potential gutting of Earth-based research. Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said as Nasa provides the scientific community with new instruments and techniques, the elimination of Earth sciences would be “a major setback if not devastating. It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ of almost the pre-satellite era. It would be extremely short sighted.”

All of which is not to say that there is no benefit to space exploration.  I am science-challenged, but a visit to the NASA website convinced me that there are most assuredly benefits to further exploration in space.  But climate science and space exploration need not be necessarily mutually exclusive.  They have co-existed for decades now, and there is no reason they cannot continue to do so.  It is obvious that Trump understands so little about both climate science and space exploration that he is unable to understand the full ramifications of what he proposes.

In addition to stripping NASA of the ability to continue doing its valuable research into climate change and other environmental issues, Trump says he plans to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “in almost every form,” as well as to ‘cancel’ the Paris climate agreement that involves 190 nations.  His selections of Myron Ebell and Scott Pruitt to EPA positions is in keeping with his plan.  Both Ebell and Pruitt have strong ties to the fossil fuel industries, and both are climate change deniers.  However, Mr. Pruitt and the incoming Trump administration cannot simply rely on their preferences or on baseless claims about science and markets. Decades of law, much of it created by conservatives’ judicial heroes, requires presidents and agencies to abide by the rule of law and justify regulatory reversals. They have to take a hard look at science and other underlying facts. A ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upholding the Clean Power Plan would further constrain the new president and Mr. Pruitt.

As regards the Paris climate agreement, Trump cannot legally block other countries from fulfilling their Paris agreement commitments, nor can he quickly or unilaterally erase Mr. Obama’s climate rules. But he can, as president, choose not to carry out the Paris plan in the United States. And he could so substantially slow or weaken the enforcement of Mr. Obama’s rules that they would have little impact on reducing emissions in the United States, at least during Mr. Trump’s term.

Why would he do any of this, given that 70% of the U.S. population believe that climate change is real, is man-made, and is a serious problem for the future of our planet?  Perhaps … just perhaps … he does not care a whit for the people of this nation after all? The U.S. has the highest carbon emissions per capita. I do not understand Trump’s logic, if indeed he is capable of logic, other than that he seems to be determined to undo anything and everything that President Obama has done over the course of the last eight years.  It is a foolhardy attitude and I hope that he and his court jesters, Pruitt and Ebell, are prevented from carrying out their “mission” by cooler heads in Congress and in the 50 states themselves.  Those who would wish to see them succeed must be seen as selfish, caring only for the moment, for the convenience, comfort and most of all profit of today, with little or no regard for tomorrow.

I am very encouraged by the initiative taken by Bill Gates recently when he announced his plans to launch a multi-billion-dollar clean energy research and development initiative.  His efforts open a door to a real possibility of there being private-sector partnerships to make a real difference in improving our environment.  I hope there will be more who think this way, who see value in preserving the only home we have … planet Earth.

11 thoughts on “Trump’s Scorched Earth Policy

  1. Dear Jill and friends.

    The issue of DT and cohorts attempting to push back on any climate change science needs to be resisted by protesting, blogging, tweeting, letter writing, phone calling and litigating in the courts. Every time, President Obama did anything, the republicans were heading to the courts for relief. We need to do likewise.The oil and fossil fuel companies have to face reality just like the tobacco companies, that we will not let them lie, deny science, destroy lives etc, so that they can become richer.

    Hugs, Gronda.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Gronda, hear, hear. It might be news for the Bangladesh fisherman villages who could move their 750,000 former inhabitants back to the shore after relocating them inland, the Carteret islanders who can move back as the ocean did not claim their island, my friend in Ecuador who can move back from the foothills with her villagers since the ocean is no longer claiming their village, the four counties surrounding Miami who need not worry anymore about funding $200 million to hold back the sea as it is really not coming up through the street drains, and Donald Trump’s Ireland golf course management who can forego their written request to the Irish government to build a sea wall to hold back the ocean encroaching on his coastal golf course due to climate change. By the way that is the same guy who says it is a hoax which could be interpreted as hypocrisy, but what do I know as I am not on his cabinet. Keith

      Liked by 2 people

  2. I do think that people like Gates and Musk will step up and act to help curb our attacks on planet earth. The “private sector” may well be prodded into even greater action by Trump’s pledge to further damage the planet we all depend upon. And his actions will bring about a greater awareness of the problem. Thus, in some strange way, what is an awful prospect may have a silver lining.

    Liked by 2 people

    • We will need them to based on the cadre of cabinet appointments who represent climate change deniers and drill baby drillers. What is interesting to me is our military have said that climate change is a threat to national security. That would hopefully to get some attention with all of the retired generals proposed for his cabinet and as advisors that might run contrary to the drill baby drillers.

      Fortunately, we have passed the tipping point on renewable energy and those efforts will continue. There are groups like Conservatives for Renewable Energy who promote these efforts, without using the lightning rod of the climate change label. We need to do more of those efforts and not less. I see the Gates, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerburg’s involvement with over 80 investors in The Breakthrough Energy Coalition as stepping up their act, should America’s leaders punt on their involvement.

      What should be highlighted more is the double digit percentage increases in jobs per annum in solar jobs in America and that they are 3x the number of coal workers. Plus, wind energy provides almost 30% of Iowa’s energy and 10% of Texas’ and will continue to grow in the plains states.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Jill, while the federal incentive was extended until 2020, I think, I also worry about that it might get altered. The CEO of Bank of America said on Charie Rose’s show that we need to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels. When asked about Trump’s cabinet, he said we will continue advocating investing and helping move forward renewable energy as it is needed and is the right thing to do for society. Trump could hinder, but the renewable train has left the station. Example – will a utility invest in a new coal plant, if it will be obsolete before it returns its investment.? Duke Energy is retiring coal plants.

          Liked by 1 person

          • True … I hope that you are right … I believe that you are, that the momentum is such that one “man” will not be able to stop the train. He is just such an insane man, that I don’t know … never mind me … just having a moment today. 😥


  3. Pingback: Trump’s Scorched Earth Policy — Filosofa’s Word | My little simple thought

I would like to hear your opinion, so please comment if you feel so inclined.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s