Last week, the West coast was taken over by wildfires and poor air quality. While firefighters and local officials fought to control the fires and prevent more damage from happening, millions of acres still burned. Both presidential candidates had a lot to say about the causes of the fires.
Check out Harbani’s post from last week for specific information about the fires themselves
President Trump’s response to the fires was not unexpected. In an interview on Monday, President Trump concluded that poor forest management was the main cause of the fires, and neglected to mention climate change as the real problem. There are several flaws to the president's reasoning, however. Firstly, much of the forest land in California is owned by the federal government, meaning that it is also the job of the federal government to care for and manage. The Trump administration had the power and responsibility to. At the same time, “cleaning” a forest to prevent the spread of fire is difficult and costly. With the natural landscape of Central California being dry and grassy during the summer, there is a tendency for fires to occur naturally and spread rapidly, even without human presence.
On the other hand, presidential candidate Biden took a critical stance on the effects of climate change. Biden called attention to the country’s immediate need for climate reform, while also attacking President Trump’s indifference on the issue. Biden cited the unusually severe weather, which includes drought and thunderstorms, as evidence to support the need for environmental reform.
After this encounter, it is clear that this is only one of many issues between republicans and democrats that have become Increasingly polarized. Trump and Biden’s stances on the environment could not oppose each other more. Biden has already pushed his plans for a strong environmental reform program, while Trump has made it clear throughout his presidency that he does not believe climate change is an issue at all. Though I am inclined to agree with Biden's take on things (and the general consensus in the scientific community), both parties’ unwillingness to compromise could preventing any solution from arising altogether. With policies and views that contradict so extremely, the likelihood of any compromise or any decision being made at all is unlikely.
4 comments:
I find it hard to fathom how trump can deny climate change or anyone for that matter. Especially since there are many different signs within our world point to it. Also I heard that trump believes that trees just magically combust. I think state governments should be leading the charge on climate change if the federal government can make any progress on the issue. The state governments would better known the risk in their own area related to climate change. It stop the federal government from making a general bill, but the federal government passing a general bill would also be helpful.
In a recent poll by the Washington Post, over 76% of americans belief that climate change is either a major problem or a crisis. This number is corroborated by a Yale study that places the number at 69%. It is obvious that a clear majority of Americans believe in climate change, but Trump, as he is known for doing, is giving a large voice to the 8% that do not believe that climate change is a problem. As Tom Udall said in Our Broken Constitution, our government has become a tyranny of the minority. Instead of popularizing extremist views on both sides, people should learn to accept compromise and lean more toward the center so beneficial change, like general bills that Liam mentioned, can actually happen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/americans-increasingly-see-climate-change-as-a-crisis-poll-shows/2019/09/12/74234db0-cd2a-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-april-2019/
Trump's lack of acknowledgment towards scientific evidence proving how real of a threat climate change is worries me, especially as we are very near a point where climate damage will not be fully reversible (1). That being said, the more troublesome issue for me is how Trump is toying with climate change as a means for political clout. The New York Times described how many of his regulations directly support rural areas, which are predominately leaning republican (2). This includes removal of industrial and farming regulations that negatively impact the environment while making it cheaper for people in these areas to make a living. In my opinion, these actions should be widely considered controversial because Trump gains support from those who would benefit from worsening our environment and further nullifies the implications that climate change is an issue, making it appear that he is simply supporting jobs in these areas and setting the country into much worse long-term damage. His actions in California don't surprise me, as Trump removes the fault of lessened climate regulation from himself and places it on another party, even though his campaign has been supporting many forms of lessened climate regulation for the past 3 years. I hope climate change is more widely and broadly discussed so that everyone, including people who believe in it, can receive clarification on its implications.
1- https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/when-do-we-hit-the-point-of-no-return-for-climate-change/2011/11/10/gIQA4rri8M_blog.html
2- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/climate/trump-environment-water.html?auth=login-google
Trump's response was astonishing but then again he is a business man and usually business and the environment don't coincide. However, it doesn't make it right that our president is just throwing this problem away and blaming it on others. Living in California I hope that the states do have enough power to figure this problem out. I like how Joe Biden adressed climate change though. Even if Joe has his problems it's still better having him as the next president. Who knows what would happen to the enviornment if Trump stays
Post a Comment