Fight against climate change has suffered a massive blow | New York Times News Service | gulf news

0
Sunday June 04, 2017 - 08:03:55 in Maqaallo by nur yare
  • Visits: 131
  • (Rating 0.0/5 Stars) Total Votes: 0
  • 0 0
  • Share via Social Media

    Fight against climate change has suffered a massive blow | New York Times News Service | gulf news

    Share on Twitter Share on facebook Share on Digg Share on Stumbleupon Share on Delicious Share on Google Plus

As America's federal government reneges on its commitments, the rest of the US will double down on its

People say, if all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. We should be so lucky. United States President Donald Trump has a hammer, but all he’ll use it for is to smash things that others have built, as the world looks on in wonder and in fear. The latest, most troubling example is his decision to obliterate the Paris climate accord: After nearly 200 years of scientific inquiry and more than 20 years of patient diplomacy that united every nation, save Syria and Nicaragua, we had Thursday afternoon’s big game-show Rose Garden reveal: Count US out.

It’s a reckless decision — America’s most incoherent act since launching the war in Iraq. But it’s not reckless in the normal way. Instead, it amounts to a thorough repudiation of two of the civilising forces on our planet: Diplomacy and science. It undercuts our civilisation’s chances of surviving global warming, but it also undercuts our civilisation itself, since that civilisation rests in large measure on those two forces.

Science first. Since the early 1800s, we’ve been slowly but surely figuring out the mystery of how our climate operates — why our planet is warmer than it should be, given its distance from the sun. From Fourier to Foote and Tyndall, from Arrhenius to Revelle and Suess and Keeling, researchers have worked out the role that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases play in regulating temperature. By the 1980s, as supercomputers let us model the climate with ever greater power, we came to understand our possible fate. Those big brains, just in time, gave us the warning we required.

And now, in this millennium, we’ve watched the warning start to play out. We’ve seen 2014 set a new global temperature record, which was smashed in 2015 and smashed again in 2016. We’ve watched Arctic sea ice vanish at a record pace and measured the early disintegration of Antarctica’s great ice sheets. We’ve been able to record alarming increases in drought and flood and wildfire, and we’ve been able to link them directly to the greenhouse gases we’ve poured into the atmosphere. This is the largest-scale example in the planet’s history of the scientific method in operation, the continuing dialectic between hypothesis and scepticism that arrived eventually at a strong consensus about the most critical aspects of our planet’s maintenance. Rational people the world around understand.

But now Trump (and 22 Republican senators who wrote a letter asking him to take the step) is betting that all of that is wrong. Trump famously called global warming a ‘hoax’ during the campaign, and with this decision he’s wagering that he was actually right — he’s calling his own bluff. No line of argument in the physical world supports his claim, and no credible authority backs him, not here and not abroad. It’s telling that he simultaneously wants to cut the funding for the satellites and ocean buoys that monitor our degrading climate. He’s simply insisting that physics isn’t real.

But it’s not just science that he’s blowing up. The Paris accord was a high achievement of the diplomatic art, a process much messier than science, and inevitably involving compromise and unseemly concession. Still, after decades of work, the world’s negotiators managed to bring along virtually every nation: The Saudis and the low-lying Marshall Islanders, the Chinese and the Indians ... One hundred and ninety-five nations negotiated the Paris accord, including the US.

The dysfunctional American political process had already warped the process, of course. The reason Paris is a series of voluntary agreements and not a real treaty is because the world had long since understood that no binding document would ever get two-thirds of the vote in America’s oil-soaked Senate. And that’s despite the fact that the agreement asks very little of the US: America’s mild shift away from coal-fired power and towards higher-mileage cars would have satisfied its obligations.

Those changes, and similar ones agreed to by other nations, would not have ended global warming. They were too small. But the hope of Paris was that the treaty would send such a strong signal to the world’s governments, and its capital markets, that the targets would become a floor and not a ceiling; that shaken into action by the accord, we would start moving much faster towards renewable energy, maybe even fast enough to begin catching up with the physics of global warming. There are signs that this has been happening: The plummeting price of solar energy just this spring persuaded India to forgo a huge planned expansion of coal plants in favour of more solar panel arrays to catch the sun. China is shutting coal mines as fast as it can build wind turbines.

And that’s precisely the moment Trump chose to make his move, a bid to undercut our best hope for a workable future in a bizarre attempt to restore the past. A few fossil-fuel barons may be pleased (Russian President Vladimir Putin likely among them, since his reign rests on the unobstructed development of Russia’s hydrocarbons), but most of the country and the world see this for the disaster it is. Majorities in every single American state, red and blue alike, wanted America to stay in the accord.

And so America will resist. As the federal government reneges on its commitments, the rest of the country will double down on its. Already cities and states are committing to 100 per cent renewable energy. Atlanta was the latest to take the step. America will make sure that every leader who hesitates and waffles on climate will be seen as another Donald Trump, and it will make sure that history will judge that name with the contempt it deserves. Not just because he didn’t take climate change seriously, but also because he didn’t take civilisation seriously.

— New York Times News Service


Leave a comment

  Tip

  Tip

  Tip

  Tip

  Tip