I’m sure you remember when Trump made one of his way too many, ridiculous declarations, this one saying that despite the opinions of the vast majority of climatologists, global warming (aka “climate change”) is a Chinese hoax, “in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” (his words).
And because global warming doesn’t really exist, why waste precious dollars on research to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gasses? Also, the coal and oil industries pay big money to compliant politicians.
Well, now that hurricane stormwater is overtaking the eastern seaboard, the Trump administration has a completely different story: Global warming does exist, but why fight it?
Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
(Stuart W. Palley/For The Washington Post), By Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis and
Chris Mooney; September 28 at 3:55 PM
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists.
Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses.
Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.
But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change.
Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.
The draft statement was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020.
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society.
And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
It’s like saying there is no need to do medical research because we all will die of one disease or another. So just save the money.
Live fast; die young. Who cares about your grandchildren? You’ll be dead by the time global warming becomes a real problem.
This is the astounding message the President of the United States wants you to accept.
The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming, the analysis states.
And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”
So don’t do the research to find technology innovation. Instead, just burn that coal, use high emission cars, because . . . well, because Trump needs votes from coal miners and money from oil companies.
Scientists predict a four degree Celsius rise by the century’s end if countries take no meaningful actions to curb their carbon output.
In the past two months, the White House has pushed to dismantle nearly half a dozen major rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, deregulatory moves intended to save companies hundreds of millions of dollars.
If enacted, the administration’s proposals would give new life to aging coal plants; allow oil and gas operations to release more methane into the atmosphere; and prevent new curbs on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air-conditioning units.
The vehicle rule alone would put 8 billion additional tons of carbon dioxidein the atmosphere this century, more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions, according to the government’s own analysis.
The right-wing argument is that humans don’t really release CO2 into the air, and anyway, CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, and anyway, a warmer world is a good thing, and anyway, plants use CO2 to grow, and anyway cutting CO2 is expensive, and anyway, the coal miners . . . .
Trump’s philosophy: The world will come to an end by 2100. There is no way to prevent it, so don’t even try.
David Pettit, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who testified against Trump’s freeze of car mileage standards Monday in Fresno, Calif., said his organization is prepared to use the administration’s own numbers to challenge its regulatory rollbacks.
He noted that NHTSA document projects that if the world takes no action to curb emissions, current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would rise from 410 parts per million to 789 ppm by 2100.
“I was shocked when I saw it,” Pettit said in a phone interview. “These are their numbers. They aren’t our numbers.”
The right-wing philosophy is: Even though air pollution harms your children’s lungs and shortens their lives, they are going to die someday anyway, so we might as well save profits and keep on polluting.
Using the no-action scenario “is a textbook example of how to lie with statistics,” said MIT Sloan School of Management professor John Sterman.
“First, the administration proposes vehicle efficiency policies that would do almost nothing [to fight climate change].
Then [the administration] makes their impact seem even smaller by comparing their proposals to what would happen if the entire world does nothing.”
This week, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned leaders gathered in New York, “If we do not change course in the next two years, we risk runaway climate change . . . Our future is at stake.”
In the Trump administration, today’s corporate profits take precedence over the future of the world.
Federal and independent research cites “evidence of climate-induced changes,” such as more frequent droughts, floods, severe storms and heat waves, and estimates that seas could rise nearly three feet globally by 2100 if the world does not decrease its carbon output.
Two articles published in the journal Science since late July — both co-authored by federal scientists — predicted that the global landscape could be transformed “without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” and declared that soaring temperatures worldwide bore humans’ “fingerprint.”
“With this administration, it’s almost as if this science is happening in another galaxy,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate and energy program. “That feedback isn’t informing the policy.”
The only thing that can turn the tide is voter outrage, and the only question is, how much evidence is required to cause your outrage?
The debate comes after a troubling summer of devastating wildfires, record-breaking heat and a catastrophic hurricane — each of which, federal scientists say, signals a warming world.
Ash from wildfires that covered Washington residents’ car hoods this summer, and the acrid smoke that filled their air, has made more voters of both parties grasp the real-world implications of climate change.
And then there’s this article from Inside Climate News:
Trump Targets Obama’s Methane Rules in Latest Climate Policy Rollbacks
BY MARIANNE LAVELLE
Interior lifts limits on methane leaks from oil and gas drilling on federal land
In its latest retreat from federal action on climate change, the Trump administration moved to lift two more rules on the leaking and uncontrolled release of the potent greenhouse gas methane from oil and natural gas operations.
California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols said, “It’s an attack on public health and continues the administration’s dereliction of duty to protect air quality, taxpayer dollars and the environment.”
Trump’s policies will kill more of your children, and their children, than have any mass-murderer in history.
Not only will millions die unnecessarily early, but the entire world will suffer — all because of the buffoonery of one foolish man.
The revelations go on and on:
Climate change could render many of Earth’s ecosystems unrecognizable
By Sarah Kaplan The Washington Post Aug 30, 2018
“Even as someone who has spent more than 40 years thinking about vegetation change looking into the past … it is really hard for me to wrap my mind around the magnitude of change we’re talking about,” said ecologist Stephen Jackson, director of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Southwest Climate Science Adaptation Center.
Some of the predicted ecological shifts are already happening, Jackson said. Where he lives in the Southwest, severe wildfires are destroying ponderosa pine forests that have existed for generations; constant high temperatures and prolonged drought prevent the pines from regenerating in the aftermath.
Jackson noted that the shade provided by ponderosa pines helps preserve snowpack well into the start of summer. The later meltwater is necessary to sustain the streams and rivers on which plants, animals, farms and cities all depend.
The loss of these pines will trigger domino effects all across the watershed, altering landscapes from the mountains to the sea.
Let us conclude with another Trump idiocy:
President Trump’s concern? Water.
“California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amounts of readily available water to be properly utilized,” the US President wrote on Twitter. “It is being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Think of California with plenty of Water,” he added. “Nice!”
The problem with his tweets, according to environmental scientists and California water experts, is that there’s way more than enough water available to fight the wildfires in California.
Plus, they say, Trump is ignoring the critical issue of climate change, which has raised global temperatures and intensified droughts, making wildfires in the West bigger and more likely.
“This seems to be a confused attempt to conflate the terrible California wildfires with our always contentious debates over water,” said Peter Gleick, an environmental scientist and former MacArthur Fellow who is president emeritus of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California.
“(Trump) implied there wasn’t enough water to fight the fires in California because of our water policies — which is complete nonsense.
There’s plenty of water to fight the fires. We don’t even use that much water to fight the fires, but there’s plenty.
Three of the state’s largest bodies of water are very close to these fires. It’s just ridiculous.”
I’ll tell you what’s ridiculous. Trump and the Republicans intentionally damaging the earth and the futures of all its inhabitants, for the sake of immediate, corporate profits. That’s what’s ridiculous.
And you know what else is ridiculous. People standing by, and letting these boobs destroy our world. That’s really ridiculous.
What is the solution?
There is an election coming up this November. You know the solution.
Don’t sit on your butt, allowing it all to happen to you.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell