By Isabelle Lounsberry
President Trump, on June 1st of 2017, announced that the United States will be pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, in which the issues of greenhouse gases, the effects of migration on the environment, and others are addressed. This not only solidified Trump’s priorities when it comes to climate change, but also set America apart from the 196 participating countries, only being supported by Nicaragua and Syria, the other countries not taking part in the agreement. The departure will officially begin in November of 2020, the effects being detrimental to environmentalists and developing countries alike. The United States is the second most contributing country when it comes to greenhouse gases, providing up to 15% of all global emissions, and with fewer regulations, that number will only rise, as well as other problems arising.
This decision outlined the further developments in the United States environmental policy under the reign of Trump. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has dropped climate change from its strategic planning document for the next four years. That means that climate change has been eradicated as a source of rising natural hazard risk. However, they did not provide a source for the increasing risks nor any further information.
It may well seem that climate change is being avoided by politicians and people in power due to political taboo. When asked her opinion on this, fellow staff write Lenaia Powell stated, “Not addressing the problem doesn’t mean the problem is going to go away. I think that this is a bigger issue than they either realize or care or to admit.”
Another politically charged doctrine of Trump’s was the scaling back of 27 national monuments, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah being the two most controversial. Both were scaled back dramatically in early February of this year, the former by approximately 84% and the latter by about half. The cutback of preserved land such as this gives way to oil and coal mining industries to utilize, and to the inhabitants, desecrate, the resources available.
Most recently, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has proposed a repeal to the Clean Power Plan, in which a legal interpretation is being brought into question– a new perspective suggested. Three total public listening sessions were held during the months of February and March of this year, in which the supporting and opposing views were brought to attention. Many opposers of the repeal argued that the effects on the environment will be too harsh without the Clean Power Plan to protect it, while others claimed that it did not provide the reliable energy as that of coal.
Many argue that these changes in regulation are in favor of corporations rather than the integrity of the planet’s future and the environment. Whether this is deep-rooted capitalism or simple politically inspired in unclear. However, many of my peers here have very strong views on the changes in the way the White House is governing policies regarding protection of the environment, such as sophomore Ayla Berntsen, who believes, “The government should protect the environment more than caring about profit. The environment is what is keeping us alive, not the government.” On the alternative side, no one came forward.
Regardless of views, one thing to keep in mind is the simple fact that we all live on the same planet, and whichever way you think best to treat it is up to you. However, the way we treat people should be universal: with respect. So, while you debate the future of humanity, remember diplomacy, and urge the interests of the people to be forthcoming.