Mike Thinks: President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

During his campaign running up to his becoming President, President Trump would frequently state that he was going to consider each and every viewpoint of professionals about issues relating to science and research among other topics relevant toward running our great nation. Now, just over two years later, the American public knows that those statements were just empty words. Early on into his Presidency, President Trump decided to 'pull the nation out of the terrible Paris Agreement' -- another subject which he still does not understand much about. International leaders even said as much -- read my blog with a video showing this to be true.

Why does President Trump continue to show his lack of knowledge about the transition toward clean/renewable energy? Why does he continue to show his lack of knowledge on a variety of subjects? I do not know. But I am still appalled every time that I hear him talk about renewable energy -- insinuating that the transition toward it is a joke. Here is an example is taken from his CPAC speech sent to me via e-mail by 'Politico Energy' on Monday:

In case you missed it Saturday, Trump gave a freewheeling and lengthy speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he criticized Democrats' Green New Deal.

"The new green deal or whatever the hell they call it. The Green New Deal, right?" Trump said. "I encourage it, I think it's really something that they should promote. They should work hard on it. ... No planes, no energy. When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric — 'Darling, is the wind blowing today? I'd like to watch television, darling.'"

Clearly, President Trump is out of touch with reality. The Green New Deal is similar to the Paris Agreement. President Trump's lack of understanding about the Green New Deal is further evidence that he really does not understand the Paris Agreement. As I have stated over and over again on this site, the targets set in the Paris Agreement are JUST TARGETS. Meaning that every few years, each organization participating in the Paris Agreement come together and discuss how their respective nation or country is meeting the 'self-imposed' targets.

What happens if the nation cannot meet the 'self-imposed' targets set years earlier? The nation will simply adjust the new forecast for their nation moving into the next interval during which a nation works to meet new targets set (i.e. 'self-imposed). With all of this in mind, listening to the President on national TV or online stating that the Paris Agreement is terrible for the United States is not only mind-blowing but clearly indicates that he possesses no understanding of the Paris Agreement.

President Trump has started surrounding himself only with professional staff who share or will agree to carry his views about the world. Therefore, last week, his attempt to form a committee (council) internally with professionals who would advise him on the negative impacts of climate change and the downstream adverse effects on National Security drew an audience from Capitol Hill. Congress has had to step up and write President Trump to warn him of the dangers of not taking climate change seriously by surrounding himself with professionals who share his opinion:

The Honorable Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Trump:

We are writing to express concern about the White House National Security Council (NSC) plan to create an internal "ad hoc group of select federal scientists" to "reassess" climate science. Climate change is widely acknowledged to be a global threat, and enabling climate skeptics to undermine the views of our nation's scientific leaders on this critical issue is dangerously misguided for both our national and economy security.

We were initially alarmed by the draft executive order that would have established a Presidential Climate Security Committee, to be chaired by NSC senior director William Happer. Dr. Happer's statements about climate change leave no doubt that he denies the overwhelming body of scientific evidence on the topic. He has argued that a "cult has built up around climate," a development he thinks is "terrible for science."(ref. 2) He has a long history of working with and taking funding from fossil fuel industry front groups, including the Heritage Foundation, (ref. 3) The Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (ref. 4). Before joining the White House, Dr. Happer headed a climate denial group called the CO2 Coalition whose major funders were foundations tied to the Mercers and the Kochs, two billionaire families opposed to climate action (ref. 5). He also wrote in a January 2017 email that the "demonization of CO2 and people like me who come to its defense... differs little from the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies or ISIL slaughter of infidels."(ref.6)

We are even more concerned about the new idea for an ad hoc group that would not be subject to any rules regarding public disclosure and oversight, with Dr. Happer presumably continuing in an active role. The creation of this group is at direct odds with the U.L. intelligence community's conclusion in the January 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment that "global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond."

Climate-related extreme weather will threaten "infrastructure, health, and water and food security," and damage "communication, energy, and transportation infrastructure."(ref.7) The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) also concluded in 2014 that "climate change will affect the Department of Defense's ability to defend the nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security."(ref.8)

Since January 2017, the Center for Climate and Security -- a nonpartisan institute of the Council on Strategic Risks -- has counted 21 senior officials who have publicly voiced concerns in their official capacity about the impacts of climate change upon global and national security. (ref. 9) General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in November 2018 that climate change will cause "great devastation requiring humanitarian assistance [and] disaster relief," and will be a source "of conflict around the world." (ref.10) The former Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, said in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that "climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response," and acknowledged that "climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today." (ref. 11)

The Government Accountability Office, in a December 2018 report to congressional committees on long-range national security threats, said that climate-related extreme weather like hurricanes and megadroughts "could intensify and affect food security, energy resources, and the health care sector." The report concludes that "tensions over climate change will grow," since "more extreme weather, water and soil stress, and food insecurity will disrupt societies" and "sea-level rise, ocean acidification, glacial melt, and pollution will change living patterns." (ref.12)

Experts have been warning policymakers about the national security implications of climate change for years. In 2007, the Council on Foreign Relations cautioned that climate change "presents a serious threat to the security and prosperity of the United States and other countries," Threatening to "overwhelm disaster-response capabilities" and "cause humanitarian disasters, contribute to political violence, and undermine weak governments" globally. In 2008, the Brookings Institution hosted a representative from then-U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government for a discussion on how climate change constitutes "the next global security threat."(ref.14) The RAND Corporation warned in 2016 that "climate change poses risk to the Department of Defense's readiness, operations, and strategies, " and that all DoD activities "will need to respond or adapt" if readiness is to be maintained. To that end, RAND noted that "many elements" of DoD "have taken steps to begin dealing with the implications of climate change and have published reports, directives and other documents to guide department actions." (ref.15)

In January 2019, more than 80 U.N. member states spoke at a day-long Security Council meeting at which "virtually everyone except the Unites Staets agreed that climate change was happenings." (ref. 16) To underscore the gap between the United states and the international community on this issue, on the very same day the original draft executive order establishing the Presidential Climate Security Committee came to light, senior military leaders from around the world formed the International Military Council on Climate and Security, a network focused on the security impacts of climate change. (ref.17) The United States' refusal to acknowledge the impacts of climate change alienates our country from the international security community.

Allowing a fossil fuel industry-funded climate change denier and other climate skeptics to conduct an "adversarial peer review" (ref. 18) of recent climate science will create an environment of inaction that needlessly threatens our national security. We respectfully ask that you do not move forward with this plan.

The U.S. Senators who signed the letter are listed at the bottom of the message. The letter can be found here. The letter above further solidifies that other government officials have determined that President Trump is out of line in his pursuit of hiring/forming a committee to advance his uninformed interests. Especially, since over the last few weeks, there has been widespread bipartisan support for the reality that climate change is not only real but is accelerated by man-made actions over the last century (at the very least). The fact that Congress has held at least 6 subcommittee meetings on climate change thus far this year.

Readers will remember that early on (within the first few months) in President Trump's introduction into the office of the Presidency, President Trump decided to limit the ability of the federal agencies to disseminate knowledge to the public. This was accomplished by restricting federal agencies from providing scientific information on their websites. The act was dangerous. Especially since the research is funded by tax-payer money. Therefore, no person should be able to stop the public from viewing data from scientific studies supported by public tax-payer funding. Regardless of whether President Trump places confidence in science or not, experimental data stands by itself open to interpretation by each of us. Partisan politics should not come into play when discussing the validity of scientific data.

Related Blog Posts:

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???