Dean Scott, the senior climate change reporter for Bloomberg, moderated a panel discussion this weekend at the 2016 conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists. The topic at hand was the upcoming U.S. election and what it means for climate change policy, particularly if Donald Trump wins the presidency.
You might think that his position on climate change is “typical” or just “more of the same” from the GOP. But, like so many other issues, Trump’s surreal candidacy is “quite a departure” for the Republican party. In his 24 years of reporting, Scott says he has "never witnessed an election cycle where a candidate fails to release any formal policy position papers."
Instead, Scott says, Trump’s position on climate change must be interpreted through tweets and off-the-cuff statements, such as: “I believe in clean air, immaculate air, but I don’t believe in climate change.”
In a sense, the Paris treaty anticipates the likes of Donald Trump. Heather Zichal, former energy and climate advisor to President Barack Obama and senior fellow for the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center, says a formal withdrawal from the treaty “isn’t an issue,” even with a Trump presidency. It involves a lengthy process and “would severely damage the U.S. in the global community." Not exactly “making America great again.”
What Trump can do, however, is to delay agreement implementation, underfund U.S. commitments, and “cause mischief."
“I want to be clear,” Zichal says, “I don’t think we’ve ever faced a bigger threat in terms of policy and climate action.” Donald Trump plays “fast and loose with the rules” and is “disconnected with reality.”
Broadly speaking, Connaughton says, Trump proposes “ramping up” all sources of U.S. energy production. He claims he will put coal workers back to work.
CEOs of large utilities are well aware they are in a “moment of transition,” especially the coal industry. It is a “fantasy that coal is coming back,” Connaughton says, and a “false narrative.”
We waste our time and betray the reality of the economic circumstances by “glamorizing” the coal worker for “what they’ve done for the country the past century,” Connaughton says. I believe that assessment is correct. Coal helped build America, for better and worse, but its dominant role in the economy is fading.
Its undoing isn’t so much due to liberal environmental activism as it is fracking natural gas and the rapidly declining cost of wind and solar power. The reality has changed for coal. Instead of making empty, uneducated claims of bringing coal jobs back to coal country, the discussion should center around real solutions for coal communities.
So far, Donald Trump hasn’t shown an understanding or concern for coal communities beyond uttering empty promises he can’t keep.
For a CEO of a coal or utility company, that’s a very important question. The better route is using the legislative process, but a dysfunctional Congress makes it impossible.
“The senate should do its job,” Connaughton says. The lack of clear policy signals from Congress frustrates coal and energy CEOs, who need a sign on how to invest and rebuild a fleet of aging power plants.
The question now is what we intend to do about it; “how far, how fast, how much much will it cost,” Connaughton says. We may not be aiming far enough or moving fast enough. And we may be stuck in a false narrative about the cost, but it will be “hard to stop the pathway we are already on.”
The underlying fear is that Donald Trump might give it a go. And there is much at stake.
Editor's note: This post first appeared in Globalwarmingisreal.com
Image credit: Flickr/Jamelle Bouie
Tom is the founder, editor, and publisher of GlobalWarmingisReal.com and the TDS Environmental Media Network. He has been a contributor for Triple Pundit since 2007. Tom has also written for Slate, Earth911, the Pepsico Foundation, Cleantechnia, Planetsave, and many other sustainability-focused publications. He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists