Change is the name of the D.C. game
We now have a new issue for the ongoing battle between the media outlets and the White House. Man the smart phones and let the tweet “battle begin.”
It is not mandatory that we like our president. We do need to recognize our nation voted for a change — or to avoid Hillary — and we are getting a glimpse of how a billionaire real estate mogul can bring that change to the forefront. So, the next episode of the Trump legacy has started.
Donald Trump has made his long awaited decision on the Paris (global) Climate Agreement initiated by former President Obama. He has announced he will withdraw the United States from the agreement, and surprise, the world has not come to an end as some seemed to expect. Unless we are experts on the climate, climate change, causes of the change and all other areas of the universe, we have had to rely on a group, or groups, promoting their particular understanding on the subject. Some sources are much more honest and try to cover all sides of the issue while others have a particular view and seem obsessed to force that on the rest of the world.
Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator was available to the press at a news conference on Friday, June 2, and shared the administration’s view on the overall agreement. What seems to be lost in all the fear mongering is simply that America is not suddenly going to pollute the air or stop research on ways to bring improvements to our climate. It does signal a new direction for the United States in the area of global leadership on the climate. Pruitt was among the group supporting the decision to exit the agreement. He pointed out some of the good features as well as some of the more costly areas of compliance.
The lay person, like myself, has seen many of the conditions that have led to our research in control of emissions from coal fired blast furnaces in steel mills. If you witnessed the area south of Chicago, Ill., and into the Gary, Ind., area during the prime days of American steel production, you know the conditions in the mills and surrounding areas were unhealthy. Area steel workers jokingly told me they had two cars — one to drive to work and one at home. It was expected, according to them, that the exterior paint of the work car would suffer in the parking lot. The conditions, fortunately, have changed dramatically over the last quarter of a century. Though it has been years since I went to the mills in the area, pictures of the area show they have made enormous progress in controlling air pollution through scrubbers and other devices on the furnaces and related equipment.
During my working years, I bought millions of pounds of raw steel products from various suppliers. Over the years I watched the price of American steel increase and saw the resultant development of overseas steel production. I got to see the best and the worst of our attempts to satisfy all parties with legislation and wage increases as standards of higher quality and environmental issues came into being. How we balance out the needs of all parties concerns me because the decisions are not always easy. As the general manager of a manufacturing plant, we were needing a particular steel product to keep people working. I made the decision to trade dollars — buying higher priced available steel from warehouses because local steel was not available — to keep the employees working. This was at a time when American mills were busy and could not meet domestic needs. How much of the increased cost will the customer bear? None if you are under contract to supply at a fixed cost. It is much easier for me to understand the plight of the coal miner whose paycheck and life are affected as we go to other sources of raw material for electric power generation. Maybe we need to remember that after we defeated Japan we helped them rebuild their country — and consider moving alternate manufacturing jobs into the coal-mining dependent areas.
The question of environmental issues is going to affect many generations and we need all the great minds we can find focused on the problem. If my livelihood were fishing and the conditions in the area that provided my primary source of income were shifting because of temperature, I certainly would be concerned.
The leaders we send to Washington, the president to the lowest-ranking member of the House, are the ones who make the decisions that determine what we do in cases of this kind. And, we must remember they are influenced by lobbyists both for and against anything that comes up. It is easy for me to second guess their decisions and their motives. A decision on the direction the United States takes on global environmental issues is far more important to me than a piece of paper agreed upon to demonstrate our leadership, but lacking in depth and measurable progress. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson noted that supporting the accord, by staying in the pact, we would remain in the negotiations and meetings and gain from a world leadership role. The question about right or wrong decisions can only be answered in the history books — if we successfully report the results a quarter century or more from today.
To the immigrant trying to escape war torn countries like Syria, the environment is not a priority. To the employee whose job is lost due to environmental factors, it is a major issue. During World War II as we geared up to defend our nation there would not have been the concern for the environment that we have been afforded by peacetime conditions.
As an aging voter, taxpayer, and one who has been blessed to be a resident of the greatest nation GOD ever allowed to form, I pray that in the long-term, the right decisions will prevail.