Trump's Money Earner

Yes, this is the right time to talk about climate change

Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, has stated that now is not the time to discuss whether or not Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are partly the result of climate change. This is not surprising. Scott Pruitt is one of the most corrupt people in Washington (and that's saying a lot) and is under investigation for lying during his Senate confirmation hearing. It is documented that he would take donations from fossil fuel companies, only to conduct private communications with those same companies before acting in their favor, even so far as to submit a letter to the US Interior Secretary on the letterhead of the Oklahoma Attorney General's office, which Pruitt was head of, even though it was written by Devon Energy. He is strongly anti-science and, even though he is charged with protecting it, has a record of hating the environment. It is, therefore, not surprising that he doesn't want to discuss science.

But, he's wrong. this is the right time to discuss climate change and it's effects on the twin disasters. In fact, it is our moral responsibility to discuss it in the light of what is happening. People are dying and suffering and we need to start acting to help prevent this from happening again. What the Trump administration, and anti-science people everywhere, want is to hide until the public attention moves to something else. They don't want to have to answer to the public about how they have acted all these years to prevent exactly this kind of occurrence. By denying the reality of climate change, they prevented actions from being taken to address the problems. The amount of human suffering is directly on their heads, and they know it. Now, they don't want to face reality. Why should they? They have been denying it all along.

But, the discussions are happening, whether they want them or not. The media is pointing out the science connecting the hurricanes to climate science, and this is a good thing. I'll have more to say on Harvey and Irma in a future post, but I wanted to bring your attention to a couple of well written editorials. Amazingly enough, one of them is in the fashion magazine Vogue. Even fashion people understand science better than the head of the EPA.

This is the editorial in Vogue:

After Harvey and Irma, When Will Trump Stop Denying Climate Change?

 
And, this one is in the New York Times:

Conspiracies, Corruption and Climate

In the meantime, do what you can to help the people who are suffering from these twin hurricanes. If the anti-science right gets its way, you could be a victim of climate change yourself in the next few years. 

Surprise! Fossil Fuel Companies Favor Staying in Paris Accord

Donald Trump demonstrated just how much he hates science with his proposed budget for 2018 that included a 30% cut in the EPA, among other cuts for science funding. This, of course, follows on the heels of appointing the EPA-hater Scott Pruitt as head of that agency. All of the hedging is gone. There can be no doubt any more - Trump hates science and he hates the environment. So, it is a little surprising he hasn't already bailed on the Paris Accord to limit greenhouse gas emissions. You would have thought it would have been done some time ago. Now, we may know the reason why. The fossil fuel industry doesn't want him to.

Read that last line again. It's the fossil fuel industry that is encouraging him to stay in the accord.

There is an interesting quote from an industry insider near the bottom,

"The independents are anti-climate change ... all this stuff costs them money. The global companies operate all over the world. They have to operate at one standard - the highest standard - wherever they operate.”

Ah! Now it's starting to make sense. I don't think the international corporations care about the environment any more than the small independents. I'm sure they would gladly throw out all regulations and pollute to the maximum extent possible if they thought it would improve their profits. But, they have to work with international laws, not just US regulations. It is easier, and more profitable, to have one set of regulations instead of multiple ones. The locals don't care about the international laws anymore than they care about the environment. They will pollute as much as they can get away with and chaff at any kind of regulation that might impact their profits.

This presents an interesting dilemma for the fossil fuel industry. They want the US to stay in the Paris Accord but, at the same time, provide funding for the anti-science advocates to prevent any actions being taken. They are, in fact, working both sides of the table.

In the end, regulations will be put into place to limit greenhouse gas emissions. People like Trump and Pruitt and organizations like Heartland Institute will all fall to the wayside. The only question is how long will it take.