Other climate change actions

Nikki Haley assures us that despite the major step of the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, it doesn’t mean that the US will not be taking action (“It’s what we do, it’s who we are” she reassures us). Though at this point my credulity has been stretched past breaking point. We are being asked to believe that despite claiming that climate change is a hoax for years, Trump has recently had an epiphany and now believes in it (despite continuing, directly and indirectly, saying the exact opposite). Then despite his major action being to remove the US from the global initiative, and making a concerted effort to move discussion away from climate change, to “clean water and air” (themselves important, but totally different ), the administration claims that the US will still take appropriate action. Frankly, I don’t believe it.

But…...for the sake of argument, let’s quickly examine some of the other climate change actions from this administration

  • Appointees to key positions: Appointing Pruit to head EPA certainly sent a signal, given his opposition to it in the past. Of course, that might mean he was the perfect person to ensure the EPA was an efficient organization to serve the public’s interest without due waste - except that Pruit continued to deny the clear link between human activities and climate change - again at odds with US and the world’s scientists. [1] His successor Andrew Wheeler? - a coal lobbyist [2] My career taught me that you can tell a lot about an organization’s focus on particular areas by looking at who is put in charge of running it - these EPA appointments were clearly never encouraging.
  • Undoing the Clean Power Plan (CPP): The primary legislation passed in the US to address climate change was the CPP, that has never been able to have any impact. It was first challenged in the courts, and blocked by the supreme court, on the basis that such decisions lay with the states (interestingly the rights of the states seems malleable, as the administration then stopped California from continuing to have state level vehicle emission policies that were different from the federal level). The CPP was then scrapped by the Trump administration, and replaced by the Affordable Clean Energy Plan (ACE) that will allow old CO2 intense coal power plants a longer lifetime [3] [4]
  • Increased subsidies for fossil fuels: Yes, US taxpayers have for years subsidized fossil fuels! Even looking at subsidies via tax preferences, in 2016 the fossil fuel industry was subsidized by some $4.6 billion (according to the US Congressional Budget Office [5] - that figure does not include other direct subsidies at the federal level, or state subsidies). This is taxpayer subsidies for an industry making a profit of $250+ billion per year [6] (that's profits for public companies only, and therefore excluding huge companies like Koch Industries). Subsidies that dwarf any US payments as part of the Paris Agreement. There is obviously nothing wrong with subsidies generally, being part of a government’s toolkit (along with regulations and taxes) to encourage desired change. The Trump administration is proposing to raise subsidies for fossil fuels, and remove tax subsidies on electric cars and renewable energy [7] [8]. This of course is incentivizing the US to move in the exact opposite direction from that necessary to combat climate change.
  • Disband Federal Advisory Committee. This committee was responsible for helping state and national policymakers incorporate the government climate analysis into long term planning - disbanded early in the agenda given the administration's lack of interest in this area. [9]
  • Prevent US agencies from publishing the science: Frighteningly, the US government agencies are being constrained in what they can report. [10] The National Climate Assessment (the report regularly produced by the task force established by President Bush) includes a ‘worse case’ scenario, predicting the impact if fossil fuel emissions continue unchecked. As we saw, their last prediction was dire - the earth’s atmosphere could warm by as much as eight degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, leading to drastically higher sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, crop failures, food losses and severe health consequences. The Trump administration said that from now on there will no longer be such a prediction of what will happen if we do nothing, which means the public and policy makers around the nation would not have that information. Similarly other departments have been prevented from producing any predictions beyond 2040, so as to hide the worse of the outcomes as to the consequences of our current path. As a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel said: “It reminds me of the Soviet Union.” Me too.
  • Lack of international engagement: This is a global fight, yet Trump avoids even a pretense of international engagement on the topic. At a G7 Summit, Trump missed a special meeting on the climate, attended by the other leaders, including Merkel (Germany), Macron (France), Johnson (UK). When asked if he had attended Trump replied “We’re having it in a little while”, and had to be told by a reporter that it had just taken place”. [11] The excuse was later amended to saying that a previous meeting had overrun, despite the fact that meeting was with Merkel, who somehow had no trouble also attending the climate session. Not the same impact as scrapping the CPP I admit, but such contempt shows how absurd it is to claim that despite withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, this administration is engaged in the fight.

What would be the administration's motivation?

It’s reasonable to ask what would Trump’s motivation be for doing what he is doing, given the experts claims that the likely consequences to the US generally are so terrible? I think the main answer is that the consequences will not be visited upon us till after the 2020 election, so he simply doesn’t care. In this regard he is the same as every politician, in being totally focused on re-election, discouraging actions where the benefits come more than a few years out, but any costs are borne immediately. Also one action is clearly visible and emotive (“Miners back at work!”), the other hard to see and dry (“emissions cut 5%!”)

The second answer of course is money. Firstly how money drives re-election of Republicans generally. The fossil fuel industry pumps money into the GOP in the form of campaign donations and lobbying, in return getting back subsidies and favorable policies (some estimate $80 in subsidies for every dollar spent). [12] Some Republicans are totally bought e.g. Cruz getting nearly 60% of Super Pac donations from fossil fuels, and in return says “The scientific evidence doesn’t support global warming” [13]. Then secondly, the direct financial benefits - boosting the stock market by distorting the economy is great if you have a fortune invested in it - as rich Trump supporters and donors do.

How this administration thinks that they themselves, and their kids, will be protected, I really cannot say. I assume that they are reasonably relying on their huge wealth to protect them from it to a great extent (unless, of course, the worst of the ‘extinction level’ predictions come true).