Trump Administration v. Climate Change

Trump Administration v. Climate Change 

Since taking office in 2016, the Trump administration has relentlessly attempted to reverse policies established by previous institutions, however, there has been no such reversal as globally detrimental as the negation of climate change. The administration's belligerent denial of prominent scientific data and evidence is exceedingly dangerous. Moreover, the brash decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement should not only be an international concern but also of domestic relevance as more environmental regulations are continuously in danger.

            In June 2016, President Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The international accord, signed by almost every other nation, is a pact to prevent the global temperature from rising above a set degree. All of the nations involved must create an environmental initiative to follow that will in some way repress humans’ harmful impact on the planet. Additionally, all nations (underdeveloped and developed) must contribute monetarily to these efforts because it is an accord that benefits all people of the world.

            According to Trump, the Paris Agreement was a “bad deal” that was not in the best interest of the American people. The administration claims that the United States has contributed economically more than any other nation and there is no benefit of remaining in the pact. Although the United States, the global hegemony, may contribute more than other countries that should not be a surprise considering our role in the international community. If Trump is not willing to pay the cost of global leadership, nor bear the responsibilities of being a wealthy developed nation, then he does not understand the “rules” of international politics.    

Furthermore, the administration has gone further to declare that there is no convincing scientific explanation for climate change. The drastic changes in temperature and frequent instances of extreme weather are what President Donald Trump considers a “hoax.” The American public should not accept the adamant denial of such a critical issue, especially by an administration that undermines the legitimacy of our nation’s most prominent institutions.

Nonetheless, the official climate change negations just further encourage the “fake news” and almost conspiracy-like convictions of Trump’s supporters. The denials of climate change fulfill a Trump campaign promise to revive the coal industry, despite the undeniable demise of such an unsustainable resource. Although Trump’s push to bring jobs back to the sector may not be a direct attack on the climate change, his rhetoric has appeased supports that may not be educated or concerned about the detrimental effects of coal on the environment.  

Climate change should be the most important issue of politicians and the American people. The environmental consequences of pollution, extreme weather, etc. cause problems that would affect human life on the individual, societal, and governmental levels. Climate change will cause international conflicts, refugee migrations, and economic collapse if it’s not seriously addressed now. Even beyond the fundamental reasons to address climate change, there should be a collective sense of outrage from the American people regarding the current administration’s handling of such a serious issue.

Why should Americans care about President Trump’s stance on climate change? It is by reason of principle that our democratic society should care about our leader’s opinions on climate change. The American people deserve the right to decide the direction of our country’s environmental policies, especially when the commander-in-chief cannot even accept fundamental scientific data, disseminates ignorance, and expresses intolerance of any opposing viewpoint.

Additionally, Americans should care about their country’s reception in the international community. By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, we have embarrassed ourselves (once again) in the international realm and that decision may bring unforeseen consequences. It is not unreasonable to anticipate political or economic repercussions from even our closest allies. In the creation of foreign policy, other nations may be hesitant to collaborate or cooperate with the United States because of our environmental stances. It is surprising that on the global level there has not been any (tangible) backlash from other nations.

In order to resolve climate change contention, there needs to be a change in political strategy by the Trump administration that includes the acknowledgement of opposing viewpoints and the acceptance of truthful information. I believe that the administration also needs to seriously consider the scientific research of climate change experts and appoint environmental advisers that are nonpartisan, but also qualified for the position. Additionally, there needs to be a reprisal against the “America first” slogan because its isolationist ideals will be detrimental in the realm of foreign policy.

Sarah Obrist