What President Trump Will Mean for Climate Change

“My whole life is about winning. I don’t lose often. I almost never lose.”
—Donald Trump

Like much of the world I was a bit shocked at the outcome of the recent US presidential election. What’e even more surprising is that despite Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote, the electoral college system means she lost the election. And it wasn’t truly all that close. As of this past weekend, Clinton’s total popular vote count was 63,541,056 while Trump’s was 61,864,015, meaning that the former Secretary of State has a lead on President-elect Trump by 1.67 million votes. Clinton now has 48 percent of the popular vote, Trump has 46.7 percent. But it is what it is, and we need to prepare for the fact that Donald Trump is going to be the next President of the United States.

I’ve held off on posting anything related to the election for some time because I wanted to collect my thoughts rather than simply lash out on an emotional level. With the tincture of time, I think I can now make some comments about what the world can expect with the upcoming presidential term if Mr. Trump sticks to the promises and claims that he made before the election.

I must say that it is disheartening that climate didn’t come up to any substantial degree during the pre-election discussion. The media cared much more about Clinton’s emails and Trump’s lewd comments he made to Billy Bush a decade ago rather than delving into something as important as the fate of our planet. But here’s what we do know:

  • Trump has called global warming a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to help boost their economy. (To paraphrase his own favourite response in the debates: “Wrong!”)
  • He has appointed Myron Ebell, a climate change denier to head his EPA transition team.
  • Trump has said he plans to reverse all major regulations that President Obama put in place to reduce US carbon dioxide emissions including the Clean Power Plan, something he can do through an Executive Order. It’s even possible the Republicans who control Congress could try to pass a law forbidding the EPA from ever trying to regulate CO2 emissions again. (Trump really doesn’t like the EPA, despite the fact that Republican President Nixon created it in 1970. In Trump’s words: “What they do is a disgrace.”)
  • Trump has stated he wants to repeal all federal spending on clean energy including research and development for wind and solar energy, nuclear power, and electric vehicles. This would require Congress, but it’s not impossible given the Republican control of both houses.
  • And finally, Trump has stated he wants to pull the US out of last year’s Paris climate deal, something he can easily do. Technically, the US can’t officially withdraw for another four years but for all practical purposes the Trump administration can simply ignore it.

Unless President Trump obtains some much-needed wisdom and moderation with regard to the above statements he has previously made, what can the world expect from the US? More air pollution and more carbon emissions than there should be. But is it all bleak? Well, free market enterprise forces will have some say in how things go regardless of what President Trump wants to achieve. For example, natural gas obtained from fracking (of which I’m no fan by any means) is still going to hurt the coal industry. And wind and solar energy will continue to grow; stopping that process would be like trying to stop the next iPhone simply because technology gets better and cheaper according to Moore’s Law, and nobody including Trump can stop that. But will it be enough to prevent emissions from rising rather than falling over the next four years? Certainly it won’t be as much as it could be with a President who was dedicated to tackling the issue, but only time will tell.

But what will it mean for the planet if President Trump turns his back on all things environmental and climate?  The deal struck in Paris was far from perfect but it was a real start, truly the most promising accord ever proposed in the history of international climate talks. Without US participation, momentum might be lost and the deal could feasibly die a slow death. Why would China and India continue to push toward clean energy for example if the world’s richest and most powerful country doesn’t even bother? Best case scenario: progress is much slower than it should be. Worst case scenario: we’re headed to 4°C or more of global warming, making the planet unsustainable for many all over the world. Goodbye Syrian refugees, hello climate refugees.

The possibilities of inaction play out like the worst apocalypse movie you can imagine: global temperatures will keep rising, ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica will keep melting, sea levels will continue rising leading to coastal regions all over the globe including southern Florida vanishing forever beneath the oceans while megadroughts become more common in the American Southwest. Not just for the next hundred years, but for the next thousand years.

So is there any reason to be optimistic? There always is, and here’s why:

  • California and New York are still pursuing their own climate policies, and it’s possible those efforts could be so successful that other states will follow their lead.
  • Wind power, solar power, and electric cars will keep getting cheaper despite a lack of support from the US government.
  • Climate activists such as myself will continue to push for action at local levels. It’s possible that opposition to Trump will lead to an entire new generation of climate activists who find creative ways to tackle global warming.
  • Other countries still have their own reasons for bringing about environmental change including China and India, if not for the climate at least for pollution.
  • Perhaps the Trump Administration will realize that pollution regulations and embracing clean energy are measures that are popular and good for the economy. If they want to hope for a second term, Trump and his team may have no choice but to succumb to the will of the people.

Climate change will continue to be a defining issue for many generations, long after President Trump is gone so there’s never reason to give up. It will never be change enough quickly enough for my liking. People will suffer and people will die as a result of our warming planet. We’re just trying to keep the numbers down. But right always wins in the end whether it’s acid rain, smoking, or CFCs. The opposition to these efforts will lose in the end, it’s just a matter of how long they’ll delay the progress we need. A Trump Administration simply means we’ve all got a lot more work ahead of us.

Clinton vs. Trump: How Do They Do on Science?

Scientific American magazine recently published a survey of 20 questions offered to the presidential candidates on issues pertaining to science. The questions were refined by scientific organizations representing 10 million scientists and engineers with the nonprofit organization ScienceDebate.org functioning as facilitator.

The sad fact—albeit not surprising based on comments heard many times in many venues—is that the Republican candidate Donald Trump failed miserably. One PhD in biology described that “Trump’s answers demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of science or the importance of these imposing problems facing us in maintaining a livable world for everyone.” And a clinical microbiologist stated that “[Trump’s] answers show how uninformed he is on the issues.”

You can check out the details here with all 20 questions and the candidates’ responses along with the scores they received for their answers with detailed explanations. All four candidates were included so in addition to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump, you can also see the responses from Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

The questions covered such broad topics as how would candidates deal with innovation, research and climate change if they were elected president.

And what was the final tally? Well, of the 20 questions one was not considered a scientific issue—namely immigration—so scores were only applied to 19 questions with a grading from 0 to 5. Out of a possible maximum score of 95, the candidates scored the following:

Clinton: 64
Trump: 7
Johnson: 30
Stein: 44 

I can appreciate that there is more to an election than issues pertaining to science, but in this ever-shrinking world where we are all connected and all needs to start thinking as global citizens at least much as citizens of a particular nation, what science is teaching us is becoming increasingly important.I only hope the my friends south of the border take this simple truth into account when they cast their ballots next week. Our entire planet depends on it.