One candidate is serious about addressing climate change
“It’ll start getting cooler. You just watch.”
President Donald Trump summed up his global warming mitigation strategy in just seven words, spoken days before the rest of the world kicks off Climate Week on Monday.
Meanwhile, nearly 100 wildfires are destroying American lives and homes up and down the West Coast due to an extreme drought. For only the second time since people could count tropical storms, five cyclones simultaneously churned through the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 20 years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says 2020 will go down as one of the five warmest years humans have witnessed.
“The global land and ocean surface temperature for the first eight months of the year was (1.85 degrees Fahrenheit) above average and the second highest such period in the 141-year record,” the agency said.
So, what does the world’s most powerful individual say? “I don’t think science knows, actually,” the president said.
Between now and the general election, I’ll be looking at how the policies espoused by the two presidential candidates could affect the economy and the business community if they win.
Trump may call climate change a hoax, but his administration touts carbon capture systems for coal plants, promotes atmospheric capture of carbon dioxide and finances research into clean energy alternatives.
If the Trump administration truly believes human-induced climate change is a hoax, then why make any effort to control carbon emissions? After listening to journalist Bob Woodward’s recordings of Trump talking about COVID-19, I can only guess he’s intentionally downplaying the true dangers of climate change.
But just as Trump’s failure to
lead on COVID-19 led to unnecessary deaths and infections, his dismissal of the threat posed by global warming is equally disastrous. Based on new research from Columbia University, the federal government is not spending nearly enough on developing cleaner forms of energy.
The U.S. spends just $9 billion a year on energy innovation and should triple that amount to keep up with the rest of the world, the report concluded.
In a separate report, Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy group found that federal research and development spending created 87,540 jobs in Texas and added $9.5 million to the state’s GDP, a broad measure of the economy. Tripling spending on energy R&D would be great for Texas.
“If the nation increased R&D spending to 1 percent of GDP by 2030 (approximately $315 billion per year), that investment would support 3.4 million U.S. jobs and add $301 billion in labor income, $478 billion in economic value, and $81 billion in tax revenue,” Breakthrough Energy said.
A comprehensive climate change policy would also boost business, according to the Business Roundtable, a collection of CEOs from the 200 largest firms in the United States. A warming planet is bad for business, the group says, and market-based solutions are needed to preserve wealth and jobs.
“This approach must be pursued in a manner that ensures environmental effectiveness while fostering innovation, maintaining U.S. competitiveness, maximizing compliance flexibility and minimizing costs to business and society,” the group said in a statement.
Democratic challenger Joe Biden is indisputably more committed to burning less fossil fuel and using nature’s limitless energy from the sun and wind. What’s up for debate is how fast he’ll move and whether he can rally public support to succeed.
Biden suffers from the moderate’s curse, buffeted by impatient environmental activists on the left and middle-class workers worried about jobs and energy costs to his right. No policy will be without winners and losers.
Environmentalists criticize his acceptance of natural gas as a bridge fuel to preserve jobs. Lobbyists for oil and gas are spreading lies about bans on fracking. But the contrast between the two candidates is clear.
Trump has spent his first term slashing environmental regulations and trying to extend the life of the coal, oil and gas industries despite the damage to the climate. He is allowing China and other nations to lead in clean energy innovation.
Biden has an actual energy policy to use available lowercarbon resources until he can rally Americans to spend trillions of dollars to put people back to work building an advanced energy grid. One promises life support for dying industries, while one wishes to move forward pragmatically.
Of course, if you do not believe the climate is changing, or that humans can do anything to slow it, then your choice is only slightly more difficult. The United States can either lead the world in energy innovation or fall inextricably behind, which is not much of a choice if you care about the country’s future.