Energy, Environment, & Climate Change (2020 Presidential Election)

At least 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree.  Our earth is warming.  Due to the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) for our energy needs, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than it has been at any time in the last 400,000 years.  People have increased the carbon dioxide in the air by 40% since the 1700’s.  Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released during the burning of fossil fuels used to produce electricity trap heat in our atmosphere.  As the atmosphere warms, evaporation increases, which increases humidity, average rainfall, and severe storms.  

According to the statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations, “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.”  These activities have caused a 1.0°C rise in the Earth’s global temperature so far.  This has resulted in a loss of sea ice, rising sea levels, and longer and more intense heat waves.  

Source:
www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

According to NASA, the effects of climate change are expected to continue into the future.  The magnitude of these effects depends on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted around the world.  Temperatures will continue to rise, precipitation will increase in some areas and decrease in others.  This will lead to more droughts and heat waves.  It will also lead to hurricanes becoming stronger and more intense.  The arctic is predicted to become ice free and the sea levels will rise.

In the United States, the northeast will see heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise which will affect agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure, and ecosystems.  The northwest and the southwest have already seen an increase in wildfires, insect outbreaks, and tree disease.  Additionally, the southwest has experienced increased heat, declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, and health impacts.  Rising sea levels pose a continuing threat to the economy and environment of the southeast.  The extreme heat there will affect agriculture, health, and lead to decreased water availability.  In the midwest, climate change will exacerbate threats to the Great Lakes while extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air & water quality, and infrastructure.

In order to combat climate change, President Obama developed the Clean Power Plan.  This plan aimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power generation.  President Trump then rescinded this plan citing economic reasons.  On a larger scale, the Paris Climate Agreement is an agreement negotiated by 196 state parties with a goal to keep the increase in average global temperature to far below 2.0°C by reducing emissions.  The United States was a part of the agreement until President Trump withdrew the United States, again citing economic reasons.

This brings us to the other 3% of scientists, the climate deniers. There are two primary think tanks that have heavily influenced the climate denial movement.  Neither currently question that climate change is occurring, but they push back against the role of human activity and the degree to which it is affecting the environment.  These two organizations are the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute.  

The Cato Institute was founded by oil billionaire, Charles Koch, of the influential Koch Brothers, known for building a donor network said to rival that of the Republican National Committee. The Koch brothers have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying against government's role in expanding health care and climate change mitigation.

For years, the Cato Institute was a leader in climate denial.  However, their most recent public statement on global warming read, “Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. But global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can accomplish the goals of such legislation. Fortunately, and contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.”

Then, about a year ago, Cato closed down its office dedicated to global warming.  The office had been led by climate scientist, Pat Michaels, known for rejecting the consensus of 97% of climate scientists.  He has repeatedly downplayed the effect humans have in climate change and was influential in the administration of George H.W. Bush and turning the GOP away from climate change at a time when they were embracing it.  During Bush’s 1988 campaign speech, he said, “Those who think we’re powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about ‘the White House effect.’  As president, I intend to do something about it.”  However, the influence of the Cato Institute eventually caused the president to change course.

The Heartland Institute has hosted an annual climate change conference in Washington, D.C. for the past 13 years, which is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry (and at least most recently hosted at the Trump International Hotel).  It features prominent climate deniers such as Tim Ball, Myron Ebell, Christopher Monckton,  David LeGates, Willie Soon, and Pat Michaels.  The research of some of these scientists have been directly funded by the fossil fuel industry.  Take, Willie Soon, for example.  He has accepted more than $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, though he insists his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.

Over the years, the size of the conference and the focus has shifted.  In the beginning, it was a three day event that drew over 50 co-sponsors.  It has since dwindled to one day with only 16 co-sponsors.  The messaging has also shifted from all out denial attacks on climate science and more towards PR campaigns that promote the idea that oil and gas companies accept climate change is happening, but they are doing their part to address it.  With this approach, they argue that natural gas is clean, fossil fuels are the future and may even be a solution to climate change.

For years, the Heartland Institute has attempted to host a debate between climate deniers and mainstream climate scientists.  However, climate change scientists have responded by saying that the questions that the deniers would like to debate have long been answered.  Leading climatologist Dr. Michael Mann, who has called the aforementioned Tim Ball "perhaps the most prominent climate change denier in Canada" went as far to say, “I won’t debate a chihuahua about climate change either, even if it continues to nip at my heels.”

So, the biggest reasons that politicians continue to pursue a fossil fuel agenda in Washington is economic. Not only is the fossil fuel industry a multi-billion dollar industry that creates jobs, funds climate denial research and scientists, and has a large lobbying influence in Washington, it has been commonly viewed as cheaper than renewable energy.  However, latest analysis is showing that renewables are catching up and becoming the cheaper alternative in some regions.  

Here are some additional arguments against renewable energy.  Many have geographic limitations.  For example, solar panels and solar farms are more efficient in areas that have a good amount of regular sunlight.  Fossil fuels are seen as more reliable and can be stored so that we can call on them when we need them.  Renewables can require more land in comparison to traditional fossil fuel plants.  And, fossil fuels are well-established, so switching over to renewables in a short amount of time would cause catastrophic job loss and major disruption.

So, whether you side with the 97% of scientists who agree on climate change or the 3% that challenge the consensus, there is a candidate for you!

Here is where the presidential candidates stand on issues of environment, energy, and climate change.  Click on their name to be taken directly to their website’s full policy on this issue.

Joe Biden:  Here are some of the highlights of Biden’s plan as found on his website

• Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions by 2050.
• Require aggressive methane pollution limits for new and existing oil and gas operations.
• Drive towards 100% clean energy and zero emissions vehicles.
• Ensure all government installments, buildings, and facilities are more efficient and climate ready.
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.
• Conserve 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030 to protect biodiversity and slow extinction.
• Permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Donald Trump:  Donald Trump is a well-documented climate denier. He appointed Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.  Since leaving the EPA, Pruitt has become a lobbyist on behalf of energy and coal.  These are some of the accomplishments related to energy and the environment that Donald Trump highlights on his website:

• He signed an executive order expanding offshore oil and gas drilling to open more leases to develop offshore drilling.
• He acted aggressively to increase energy exports to the global market.
• He approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines supporting an estimated 42,000 jobs and $2 billion in wages.
• He announced the approval of the New Burgos pipeline to export U.S. gasoline to Mexico.
• He reversed the Obama moratorium on new leases for oil and gas development on federal lands.
• He repealed  Obama’s Clean Power Plan as well as many additional Obama era regulations related to the environment.
• He withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement.
• He signed legislation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to domestic energy production.