So Donald J. Trump, has been elected as the 45th President of the United States of America. Being at the helm of the most powerful country on earth, Trump stands to greatly influence the global economy, politics, and environmental situation.
That he scored this victory at this juncture in world history will be talked about in the coming decades. But right now, environmentalists like myself are encouraged to take a closer look at how a Trump presidency will have strong and long-standing impact on arguably the most urgent issue of our times: Climate change.
Trump is a known climate change denier. How he could not grasp the entire science behind it perhaps warrants another post, but for now, we can say that he is not even alone in this. Perhaps he is truly unaware, but perhaps he is also feigning innocence, so that, like many others in the Republican party, they can continue entering lucrative ventures and be in business-as-usual mode, and thus also continue to wreak havoc on the environment.
Here are parts of his plan of action for his first 100 days in office. It should make us shudder (if his very election has not accomplished that for us):
"FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward."
Both are about generating domestic employment, which were his major campaign pitch to the disgruntled working-class Americans who lamented the offshoring practices of many businesses, which left them jobless. But at what cost?
Now, Trump is promising to push for these ventures that will simply add to the planet's climate woes. "Shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal." We are not so sure about the latter, but we do know that at this stage, renewable is the way to go. We are one of the world's largest economies, and if we do not pay serious attention to finding a more sustainable way to fuel our activities, then all of the growth we are expecting will be for naught.
We will most likely suffer more extreme weather events, and witness another Hurricane Katrina that will devastate more communities. And of course, as we pursue this course of unsustainable development, our brothers and sisters from the more vulnerable parts of the globe will suffer. Do we want this?
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Google+ or LinkedIn.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Donald Trump and climate change
As I have argued in a previous post, a Trump presidency will reverberate across the globe, and too, with important implications on the world environmental situation. This time, I would like to specifically link it with a deeply disturbing news.
In a report published on The Independent, climatologists warned that it could be “game over” for humanity soon. Within a lifetime, we may see global temperatures rise by over 7 degrees Celsius, as we continue to pump an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Part of the report reads, “According to the current best estimate, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if humans carry on with a “business as usual” approach using large amounts of fossil fuels, the Earth’s average temperature will rise by between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.”
The trajectory of things happening is easy to imagine from here: Polar ice caps will melt, facilitating flooding in low-lying areas even after what is previously tagged as normal rainfall. We will experience harsher winters and hotter summers – a tragedy for those whose livelihoods depend on a more balanced ecological conditions: Farming, fishing, to name a few. When this happens, our peasants and fisherfolk are set to harvest way less produce than ever before.
Here in the United States, our farmers are relatively more moneyed and equipped with technologies, and also benefit from government subsidies. In less developed parts of the world, the impacts of climate change can only mean hunger in poor farming and fishing communities that have no financial means to deal with less water for irrigation, and long, dry spells. We might see the emergence of new diseases, too.
The fact is, we need to pour more investments towards climate change programs not just for our country but throughout the world. Unfortunately, Trump’s campaign has promised to do exactly the opposite.
Within his first 100 days, he said that he will “cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure.” The United States might also pull out from the Paris treaty, under Trump.
These are not the things we need in what has already described been described by scientists as an emergency situation. Surely, there is a need for all of us to campaign, and campaign hard, for a more sensible response from the government to this important issue.
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Facebook or Twitter.
In a report published on The Independent, climatologists warned that it could be “game over” for humanity soon. Within a lifetime, we may see global temperatures rise by over 7 degrees Celsius, as we continue to pump an increasing amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Part of the report reads, “According to the current best estimate, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if humans carry on with a “business as usual” approach using large amounts of fossil fuels, the Earth’s average temperature will rise by between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2100.”
The trajectory of things happening is easy to imagine from here: Polar ice caps will melt, facilitating flooding in low-lying areas even after what is previously tagged as normal rainfall. We will experience harsher winters and hotter summers – a tragedy for those whose livelihoods depend on a more balanced ecological conditions: Farming, fishing, to name a few. When this happens, our peasants and fisherfolk are set to harvest way less produce than ever before.
Here in the United States, our farmers are relatively more moneyed and equipped with technologies, and also benefit from government subsidies. In less developed parts of the world, the impacts of climate change can only mean hunger in poor farming and fishing communities that have no financial means to deal with less water for irrigation, and long, dry spells. We might see the emergence of new diseases, too.
The fact is, we need to pour more investments towards climate change programs not just for our country but throughout the world. Unfortunately, Trump’s campaign has promised to do exactly the opposite.
Within his first 100 days, he said that he will “cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure.” The United States might also pull out from the Paris treaty, under Trump.
These are not the things we need in what has already described been described by scientists as an emergency situation. Surely, there is a need for all of us to campaign, and campaign hard, for a more sensible response from the government to this important issue.
Author's Note: This is a guest blog post by Richard A. Kimball, a California native who enjoys writing and blogging about the environment. To read more of his work, you can visit his blog, Facebook or Twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)