Atmospheric carbon dioxide is at a record high, Europe is in the midst of a hellish heat wave, and extreme weather is ravaging large swaths of the globe, but President Donald Trump dismissed the need for climate action during the G20 summit in Japan on Saturday and falsely claimed that air and water in the U.S. are the "cleanest" they have ever been.
Trump told reporters during a press conference Saturday morning that he is not ignoring the threat of the climate crisis, but he doesn't want to take action to confront the emergency because such a move would threaten corporate profits.
"So we have the best numbers that we've ever had recently," Trump said. "I'm not looking to put our companies out of business."
"I'm not looking to create a standard that is so high that we're going to lose 20-25 percent of our production. I'm not willing to do that," Trump continued. "We have the cleanest water we've ever had, we have the cleanest air—you saw the reports come out recently. We have the cleanest air we've ever had. But I'm not willing to sacrifice the tremendous power of what we've built up over a long period of time, and what I've enhanced and revived."
As the Associated Press reported after Trump claimed earlier this month that the U.S. is "setting records environmentally" with its air and water quality, the "U.S. does not have the cleanest air, and it hasn't gotten better under the Trump administration."
"The U.S. ranks poorly on smog pollution,which kills 24,000 Americans per year," according to AP. "On a scale from the cleanest to the dirtiest, the U.S. is at 123 out of 195 countries measured."
Furthermore, according to a study published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tens of millions of Americans are exposed to unsafe drinking water each year.
Trump's comments came amid reports that the U.S. president attempted to pressure allies to weaken the G20 commitment to fighting climate change.
According to Politico, Trump tried "to enlist the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Australia, and Turkey in opposing commitments to stand by the Paris climate agreement made at previous G-20 summits."
Trump's efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, as the U.S. remained the sole outlier in refusing to back the summit's climate declaration.
"Under the compromise struck at the last minute on Saturday," Politico reported, "heads of state from 19 of the 20 countries backed the Paris agreement, while the United States secured a carve-out under an 'agree to disagree' framework—the same solution as in previous G20s since U.S. President Donald Trump was elected."
ILikeNeurons on June 29th, 2019 at 12:29 UTC »
The consensus among scientists and economists on carbon pricing§ to mitigate climate change is similar to the consensus among climatologists that human activity is responsible for global warming. Putting the price upstream where the fossil fuels enter the market makes it simple, easily enforceable, and bureaucratically lean. Returning the revenue as an equitable dividend offsets the regressive effects of the tax (in fact, ~60% of the public would receive more in dividend than they paid in tax) and allows for a higher carbon price (which is what matters for climate mitigation) because the public isn't willing to pay anywhere near what's needed otherwise. Enacting a border tax would protect domestic businesses from foreign producers not saddled with similar pollution taxes, and also incentivize those countries to enact their own.
Conservative estimates are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost us 10% of GDP over 50 years, starting about now. In contrast, carbon taxes may actually boost GDP, if the revenue is returned as an equitable dividend to households (the poor tend to spend money when they've got it, which boosts economic growth).
Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest, and many nations have already started. We won’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels without a carbon tax, the longer we wait to take action the more expensive it will be. Each year we delay costs ~$900 billion.
It's the smart thing to do. And the IPCC made clear pricing carbon is necessary if we want to meet our 1.5 ºC target.
The U.S. could induce other nations to enact mitigation policies by enacting one of our own. Contrary to popular belief the main barrier isn't lack of public support; in fact, a majority in every congressional district and each political party supports a carbon tax, which does help our chances of passing meaningful legislation. But don't count on someone else to solve this problem:
Vote. People who prioritize climate change and the environment have not been very reliable voters, which explains much of the lackadaisical response of lawmakers, and many Americans don't realize we should be voting (on average) in 3-4 elections per year. In 2018 in the U.S., the percentage of voters prioritizing the environment more than tripled, and now climate change is a priority issue for lawmakers. Even if you don't like any of the candidates or live in a 'safe' district, whether or not you vote is a matter of public record, and it's fairly easy to figure out if you care about the environment or climate change. Politicians use this information to prioritize agendas. Voting in every election, even the minor ones, will raise the profile and power of your values. If you don't vote, you and your values can safely be ignored.
Lobby. Lobbying works, and you don't need a lot of money to be effective (though it does help to educate yourself on effective tactics). Becoming an active volunteer with this group is the most important thing an individual can do on climate change, according to NASA climatologist James Hansen. If you're too busy to go through the free training, sign up for text alerts to join coordinated call-in days (it works) or set yourself a monthly reminder to write a letter to your elected officials.
Recruit. Most of us are either alarmed or concerned about climate change, yet most aren't taking the necessary steps to solve the problem -- the most common reason is that no one asked. If all of us who are 'very worried' about climate change organized we would be >26x more powerful than the NRA. According to Yale data, many of your friends and family would welcome the opportunity to get involved if you just asked. So please volunteer or donate to turn out environmental voters, and invite your friends and family to lobby Congress.
§ The IPCC (AR5, WGIII) Summary for Policymakers states with "high confidence" that tax-based policies are effective at decoupling GHG emissions from GDP (see p. 28). Ch. 15 has a more complete discussion. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, has also called for a carbon tax. According to IMF research, most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should. There is general agreement among economists on carbon taxes whether you consider economists with expertise in climate economics, economists with expertise in resource economics, or economists from all sectors. It is literally Econ 101.
Black-Shoe on June 29th, 2019 at 12:06 UTC »
Said the businessman to the scientists about climate change.
thesesforty-three on June 29th, 2019 at 12:03 UTC »
Is Trump confusing EPA standards for clean drinking water and air quality with Climate Change? He has no fucking idea what it even is and he's denying it.