True to form, President Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris accord on climate change, joining Syria and Nicaragua as the only non-participating states. He got an earful from the Europeans at the just-concluded G-7 meeting in Italy, but the US stood aside as the other six countries committed to fully carrying out the Paris agreement. Trump and most of his colleagues seem oblivious to the environmental and political costs their decision entails. The planet will suffer for their ignorance, as will initiatives in the US to move rapidly ahead on renewal energy-based technologies and accompanying employment.
[For a fascinating interactive climate-change chart, see the MEDIA section of my website: https://melgurtov.com.]
The bad news on the environment continues to mount up. In my last blog on the subject (Post #152) I mentioned coral reef die-off in the Great Barrier Reef, disintegration in the West Antarctic ice flow, sea-level rise, and resumption of major deforestation in the Amazon basin. 2016 was the hottest year on record, and extreme weather events that we are seeing everywhere are mainly the consequence of carbon buildup in the atmosphere, especially its impact on Arctic melting.
Another warning sign comes from the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen, which is home to the Global Seed Vault. The vault, sunk in deep permafrost, holds about a million food crop seeds. Because of climate change, flooding threatened the vault, which previously had been considered impregnable (www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts). Fortunately, the vault itself did not yield; but we may not be so lucky the next time. I couldn’t help thinking of an apocalyptic scenario in which Earth’s survivors are reduced to foraging for seeds to stave off mass starvation.
Blame for Trump’s decision should mostly fall on the climate skeptics he has appointed. Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is an oil-and-gas man who has a long history of disparaging scientific findings on climate change and initiating law suits against the EPA. He also has a hard time with facts—saying, for instance, that China and India have no obligations under the Paris Accord until 2030, and that they are “polluting far more than we are.” If Pruitt’s wildest dream comes true, the EPA will be eliminated by December 31, 2018 under H.R. 861. William Happer, the leading candidate for science adviser to the president, considers climate scientists (he’s a physicist) “like a cult. It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant.” (On other occasions he has likened climate science to Nazism and ISIS.) And of course there’s the secretary of energy, Rick Perry. No explanation needed there. What these three have in common besides being climate-change deniers is their belief that government scientists need to be muzzled—their public talks, conference papers, and media appearances should be closely monitored and limited.
These appointments are prelude to a proposed 31 percent cut in the EPA budget that will gut US science research and the environmental protection bureaucracy. Even though such an extraordinary cut is unlikely to get Congressional approval, some significant budget reduction is inevitable, and will have a more immediate effect on climate change than withdrawal from the Paris Accord. A quarter of EPA’s employees and fifty-six programs are to be eliminated. Here are some of the major reductions, as identified by the Washington Post:
The most lasting ill effects of having an anti-science administration may be on the science education of children at the state level. Two states, and possibly a third (Florida), have laws on the books that enable parents to challenge teachers on how they teach evolution and climate change. Parents who believe in creationism and deny climate change may not be able to force local school boards and teachers to dispose of standard science texts, but they may compel teachers to introduce creationism and “alternative” explanations of climate change in order to “balance” the curriculum.
Standing against the three blind mice are virtually the entire climate science community and, most recently, three former administrators of the EPA. (Within the administration, only Gary Cohn, Trump’s chief economic adviser, reportedly has argued in favor of the Paris accord as well as against supporting the coal industry.) The former administrators served over three decades, and wrote an op-ed piece the other day to express concern over Trump’s decision on the Paris Accord (www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/three-republican-epa-administrators-trump-is-putting-us-on-a-dangerous-path/2017/05/26/10060ad2-424b-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html). Saying that Trump “has chosen ignorance over knowledge,” the three took particular aim at Trump’s proposed budget cuts relevant to global warming—not just the EPA, but also “programs in the departments of Energy, State, Interior and Homeland Security, and at the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA . . . The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is zeroed out; air and energy research are cut by 66 percent.” The op-ed concludes: “With no seeming clue as to what’s going on, the president seems to have cast our lot with a small coterie of climate skeptics and their industry allies rather than trying to better understand the impact of increased greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere.” Indeed.
Thus does the US descend into global irresponsibility and surrender of opportunities to lead in the human interest. The US withdrawal from Paris will not take full effect until 2020, but by then most of the world will have passed us by. And while our backs are turned, the EU’s climate commissioner, Miguel Arias Cañete, announced: “The EU and China are joining forces to forge ahead on the implementation of the Paris agreement and accelerate the global transition to clean energy” (www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/31/china-eu-climate-lead-paris-agreement).
If there is a silver lining here, it is the planned formation of climate-change alliances. One is led by California and joined by progressive leaders in Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, and perhaps some other states. Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is leading another emission-reduction effort involving coordination among cities, businesses, and universities (www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/american-cities-climate-standards.html). These initiatives are saying “no” to Washington’s failure of leadership and substituting for it with legislation that may go beyond the requirements of the Paris Accord. So we must now turn to our state and local governments for scientific advances, economic innovation, and political courage if we are to help save the planet.
 Writing in the Washington Post on April 14 (www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/14/epa-administrator-scott-pruitts-claim-that-china-and-india-have-no-obligations-until-2030-under-the-paris-accord/?utm_term=.7d62e8d4a425), Glenn Kessler notes: “China (but not India) does produce more carbon dioxide than the United States, but it has nearly 1.4 billion people compared to 325 million for the United States. So, on a per capita basis, the United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of China — and eight times more than India. While some small countries have higher per capita pollution rates than the United States, the United States is by far the largest emitter of carbon dioxide among the 10 most populous countries. . . . China, in its submission [of its action plan], said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would seek to cut its carbon emissions by 60 to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030. India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 to 35 percent below 2005 by 2030.”
I read part of this. But I couldn’t continue. It is just so depressing and enraging.
Re: Temperature vs Latitude chart ( http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2017/05/zmALLRCP85.gif)
shows that global temperature increases are not uniform but are most acute at the poles . And the poles are where our weather at the 30-50° latitudes comes from, as warmed air and water flow down to the cooler regions at lower latitudes.
This anti science blow of the Trump administration withdrawing from the Paris Climate Change Accord, reminds me of an event I observed first hand at the transition of the Reagan administration again demonstrating politics overwhelming science and engineering. As a result the US lost the lead in commercializing hybrid cars, a concept that originated here.
President Carter was cognizant of the energy crisis in the 70’s. He initiated conservation and non-fossil energy R&D projects. At the Caltech Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena at that time we had a small contract to develop prototype hybrid cars, with support from Ford, Chrysler and others. We replaced the rear seats of about 6 stock Plymouths and Mustangs with extra conventional auto batteries, electric motors, regenerative braking chargers, and analog switching between engine and motor. These cars made test runs around the lab, local streets and freeways. They were clunky but demonstrated fuel economy over pure gasoline engine cars. They pointed to the need for further development of batteries, digital controllers, low air resistance shapes and other improvements. The Reagan administration canceled federal support for energy conservation, including JPL’s hybrid cars. But the hybrid car idea wasn’t lost, and by the mid eighties the Japanese were selling Prius hybrid vehicles in Japan. US export versions followed in the nineties and were sold around the world. Twenty years later the US automotive industry first sold US made hybrid cars.