Quantifying the Damage Trump Is Doing to the Environment
Frequent commenter Glenn Doty writes: ….. Even under the best possible outlook we couldn’t have fully decarbonized for a half a century. Trump may have delayed us as much as six years, but likely no more than that.….But in a hundred years, the six years that Trump cost us won’t be that big of a deal. We just have to make sure to do everything we can not to lose any more ground, and save what we can.
Six years may be correct, but it’s hard to say because there are so many moving parts. I grant that the direct effects like environmental deregulation, the dismantling of the EPA, rolling back auto emission and mileage standards, and the support for the fossil fuel industries can be measured with some level of accuracy, but there are some indirect effects that are hard to calculate:
• Stacking the Supreme Court with huge supporters of corporate power and small government
• Encouraging other countries (like Brazil) to follow suit and install autocrats who aggressively destroy the environment
There are positive things that can come of this, however:
• Other countries may work harder to make up for the damage we’re doing
• The U.S. itself may learn from its mistake and get a real progressive elected in 2020
I would also add that this planet will very likely be an unimaginably different place in 100 years, whether that means environmental damage, world fascism, nuclear war, or runaway artificial intelligence. Check that out if you want a shocking experience; Sam Harris may be the greatest mind on the planet today.
Of course, there are positive possibilities, like new developments in cleantech.
As always, Glenn, I appreciate your astute comments.
Craig,
Hmmm,….. six years ? Interesting calculation, why not five or seven, or even six year and 87 days ?
Interestingly, during the period of the Trump administration, US emissions fell at a faster rate than any other major industrialized nation. It could be expected that US emissions will rise with industrial recovery, but as clean(er) coal technology start to replace older installations the flow on effects of by emission reducing products to other highly pollutant industries such as cement and concrete, will help contain US emission levels.
The impact of Clean(er) Coal technology is already being felt on a global scale.
I think when you refer to Sam Harris as “the greatest mind on the planet today”, you are confusing “mind”, with “ego”.
I hate responding to the idiot troll, but it’s worth pointing out that the U.S. lead the world in reducing emissions between 2005 and 2017, with most of the emissions reduction falling between 2008 and 2016… because we had first a massive recession (which reduced emissions), and then we had good governance (which kept emissions low and continued to reduce them.
In 2017, the U.S. emissions dropped by 0.66%, which was nowhere near the front of the pack. That emissions drop was almost entirely from the full-year realization of projects that came online in 2016 (so they would have only operated for part of 2016, while operating all of 2017, resulting in net lower emissions in 2017).
There was also a modest continual build-out of wind and solar installs throughout 2017, which was still operating on Obama’s budget through October and operating on a continuing resolution of Obama’s budget through Feb 2018.
But our meager 0.66% reduction in 2017 didn’t lead the world. That honor goes to Mexico, which saw a 4.0% reduction, and the U.K. which saw a 3.8% reduction. There were dozens of countries that exceeded our performance in 2017.
Sadly, with Trump gaining power and actually pushing his horrible agenda, we are certain to see an increase in emissions in 2018 and 2019. Hopefully, the democratic House will stop further destruction and keep things neutral for 2020.
Craig,
While it’s far too early to attribute any reductions in US emissions to the Trump administration, it’s also far too small a time period to claim any increase has occurred has occurred as a result of the new administrations policies.
Increases in emissions should be expected in periods of greater economic activity, especially with the advent of a long period of cheap fossil fuel, in particular gasoline and diesel.
Yet that hasn’t occurred despite an administration with policies to encourage economic, especially industrial, growth.
One glance at the chart to be found at;
[ http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-in-2017-us-had-largest-decline-in-co2-emissions-in-the-world-for-9th-time-this-century/%5D
Shows the US to be the leader in reducing greenhouse emissions, and China leading the nations increasing emissions.
Glenn’s claim UK reductions as 3.8% is erroneous. The most accurate figures will not even be available until 2020, and certainly not reveal a figure of 3.8%;
[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/695930/2017_Provisional_Emissions_statistics_2.pdf]
But these are figures are not really important, what’s far more important than petty partisan propaganda, is promoting new technologies ensuring the production and application of energy is not only cleaner but more efficient across entire industries.
Disappointingly, ol’ Glenn doesn’t explain how he arrived at the figure of “six years”, a figure you didn’t bother to question but just accepted on “faith” as being an accepted fact.
Without wishing to be gratuitously argumentative, in my opinion, it’s these sort of unsubstantiated claims and the responses by advocates that have led a polarizing of opinion and a general loss of environmental momentum.
IE:
Glenn;…. Trump may have delayed us as much as six years….
MP: Can you define “us” and how do arrive at the figure of six years ?
Glenn; You’re a troll !
MP : Hmmm,…can you just explain why six years ?
Glenn : Troll, troll, idiot troll, troll, etc.
Calling people Trolls, morally depraved, morons, etc, is not helpful, in fact counter-productive. The US mid-term elections proved that candidates with constructive moderate agenda triumphed over radicals.
The mid-term elections also proved that while the President may be a polarizing figure, many of his policies are popular and have substantial support.
The emissions gains from the widespread adoption of cheap natural gas might be coming to a end sooner than anticipated with the rapid rise in demand from Asia for LPG.
Clean energy, or at least, cleaner energy, can’t be allowed to become an ideological political battlefield with a “winner take all” attitude.
The world needs to harness the best and most practical technologies within a flexible format. Choosing sides and fighting ideological wars will not help the economy or the environment.