'Climate change is a hoax' said the newly elected President of the United States.
 |
| The President-Elect's views on climate change and global warming (Source: www.twitter.com) |
The polls are set and Donald Trump is to steer America through the next four years. However, it could not have come at a worse time. In the climate agenda the next four years are key to future policies, with the potential to shape the global climate effort as we begin moving into murky waters. In this blog post I move slightly off track and explore the relationship between climate and politics and attempt to understand what this political breakthrough will have on geoengineering as a future management strategy.
Worst Case Scenarios:
1. Trump takes a firm stand on increasing US oil drilling and coal mining, strongly opposing Obama's 'Clean Power Plan' aiming to reduce US carbon emissions by 32% from 2005 - 2030. Under his lead the USA is likely to increase fossil fuel consumption.
2. In a recent interview, Trump pledged to 'cancel the Paris climate agreement' and cancel all payments to the UN climate change programmes. Although other countries are likely to remain pro-environment, the loss of the US from these global efforts will come as a set back to achieving global targets. In some cases countries may be less motivated to reach emissions targets as the USA offset any reductions made.
2. In a recent interview, Trump pledged to 'cancel the Paris climate agreement' and cancel all payments to the UN climate change programmes. Although other countries are likely to remain pro-environment, the loss of the US from these global efforts will come as a set back to achieving global targets. In some cases countries may be less motivated to reach emissions targets as the USA offset any reductions made.
3. With such a leading figure making these bold sceptical statements, it is a possibility that supporters will take a similar view. An extreme outcome of this could be reduced discourse about climate change in the public sphere in the US. The result of such is reduced public backing and a general lack of care about reducing GHGs.
4. Trump is keen on ensuring 'energy independence' in the US through bringing back coal mining in an attempt to 'save the coal industry'. However, at a time when fracking is expanding and natural gas becomes more globally available, it is unlikely that coal will make a return.
If such worst case scenarios were to happen, a study by Lux Research indicates projected emissions over the next 8 years highlighting differences between Trump's and Clinton's run. However, this should be taken with a pinch of salt, as political motives could be behind its production.
 |
| Figure 1: Emissions based on previous presidential policies and future projections (Source: http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/read/trump-presidency-could-mean-34-billion-tons-more-us-carbon/). |
Implications on Geoengineering:
In the next four years, if geoengineering was feasible and had strong scientific backing, it would require a truly global effort to work effectively. All the methods outlined in last weeks post are both extremely expensive and require large scale projects. Therefore, global leaders will have to really believe in climate change and be willing to invest financially in the global environment. With such strong views against climate policy, Trump is the least favourable leader to be making these key decisions.
However, there's no need to worry. Trump's four year (or even eight year) term is unlikely to place him in control of potential large geoengineering decisions as it still remains fairly novel in the scientific world and even more so in policy making. Furthermore, the worst case scenarios stated above are unlikely as his single view as a leader will not dictate all policy made over the course of the next four years, congressional approval will be very difficult for many of his extreme decisions. If anything, scientists should be more inclined to further research the viability of geoengineering to compensate for what is likely to be an increase in climate change scepticism and potential increased emissions in America. At the same time, scientists should not see Trump's scepticism as a reason to lose hope, rather as a motivation to take matters into their own hands and care for the future of our planet.
However, there's no need to worry. Trump's four year (or even eight year) term is unlikely to place him in control of potential large geoengineering decisions as it still remains fairly novel in the scientific world and even more so in policy making. Furthermore, the worst case scenarios stated above are unlikely as his single view as a leader will not dictate all policy made over the course of the next four years, congressional approval will be very difficult for many of his extreme decisions. If anything, scientists should be more inclined to further research the viability of geoengineering to compensate for what is likely to be an increase in climate change scepticism and potential increased emissions in America. At the same time, scientists should not see Trump's scepticism as a reason to lose hope, rather as a motivation to take matters into their own hands and care for the future of our planet.
Very interesting sentiments! I personally voted for Hillary Clinton for many reasons - but one of the key things for me was environmental policy. Barack Obama has done more than I expected to sign agreements with other countries, especially China, on Climate Change policies. I hope that Trump is not able to undo all this important work!
ReplyDelete