Comments 1 to 18:

1. nigelj at 06:15 AM on 20 March, 2017

   "Trump's administration on Thursday proposed a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency's budget"

   Yes correct, but it goes much further. Matt Gaetz, a republican member of the house of representatives has launched a bill seeking to "completely eliminate"  the EPA as below. He wants to leave it to the individual states.

   www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/environmental-protection-agency-bill-drafted-abolish-matt-gaetz-congress-a7556596.html

   Part of Geatz"s rhetoric is that environmental rules are allegedly costing jobs. He provides no evidence, and given unemployment has fallen from 11% to about 5% over the last 8 years it's hard to see where his evidence would come from. The EPA has implimented various emissions rules over this period, but unemployment has fallen. I would suggest he would actually find evidence environmenal rules create jobs, given they inevitably lead to development of new technologies.

   It hardly needs to be said how senseless it would be to eliminate or cut the EPA. Before the EPA and things like the clean air act,  there were all sorts of different rules in different states, and it was inconsistent and confusing, and became a race to the bottom.

   Environmentals standards were mostly pretty poor quality back then. Levels of pollution were very high.

   You would have another huge problem, with environmental issues decided by individual states. The environment doesn't really have any borders, so it will lead to endless fighting among the states.

   These are some of the very reasons regulation by individual states didn't work in the past, and why the EPA emerged. Is Gaetz so stupid he can't work that out?

   You Americans have elected complete clowns. We in the rest of the world are just stunned, I cant tell you.

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [JH] Rest assurred, many, if not most, Americans were also completely stunned by the election of Trump and are totally embarrassed by his antics and actions since he was sworn into office.

2. nigelj at 06:23 AM on 20 March, 2017

   Correction - some of you Americans have elected complete clowns. I realise theres huge division of opinion. And my country is facing many similar issues and debates over how to regulate environmental matters, hence my interest. But all our political parties see at least some place for a central agency.

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [JH] Perhaps the old adage, "Give a man enough rope and he will surely hang himself." will be played out.

3. chriskoz at 08:12 AM on 20 March, 2017

   nigelj,

   From our point of view as CS communicators & AGW mitigation advocates I consider a blessing that some many chaotic developments (anti-immigrations, anti-helthcare, border wall, racism and fake evesdropping allegations) are preoccupying this administration. Because if not preoccupied my his own-inflicted moronic mess, the president would urely focus on fighting the "chinese hoax". So far 31% EPA cuts are the biggest fight he's undertaken. But rest assured, far more to come, including wfforts to destroy Paris agreement. I only hope the US politicians come to (or are force to) terms with reality and impeach the moronic sociopath before he starts really damaging the environment.

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [JH] The annual budget proposed by the President is typically "DOA" in the Congress. 

4. Tom Curtis at 08:58 AM on 20 March, 2017

   chriskoz @3, Trump's proposed budget cuts in relation to climate change are far more extensive than just his cuts to the EPA.  Predictably, he also proposes to cut all funding to UN climate change programs, including funding to help poor nations to transition to a low carbon economy.  He also proposes to massively cut climate related research, including at NASA and the Department of Energy.  In fact a Trump spokesman has been quoted as saying that there will be no further funding of climate research.  Further, climate change adaption programs at NOAA will also be cut.

   From appearance, the only federal funding to research, mitigate or adapt climate change if those portions of the proposed budget are passed are those that have escaped the Trump administrations attention.  Given their general incompetence, that may still be significant, but I would not count on it.

   Nor would I be as sanguine as JH.  While I do not expect most of the budget to pass, neutering action on climate change is close to the heart of many Republican members of Congress, and to their most vocal supporters.  I do not expect a lot of pushback in that area of the budget.

   0 0
5. Tom Curtis at 09:13 AM on 20 March, 2017

   Further to my comment @4, here is a more detailed report of Trump's proposed cuts to science research in general.  The picture is grim, only being 'relieved' for some branches of science with extra funding drawn from funding released by cutting climate research.

   This is now a distinct pattern.  One of the fundamental arguments of deniers is that the science is still uncertain, that we need more research before we do anything.  Now, however, the Harper government in Canada cut climate related research, defunded the preservation of data, and placed a gag order on scientists;  the Abbot/Turnbull government in Australia defunded the Climate Commission that was supposed to advice it on climate science, and cut CSIRO funding on climate research.  And now we have Trump trying to completely gut all climate research in the US, all climate programs in the US and UN, and also placing a gag order on scientists.

   The evidence could not be clearer that conservative know that the science is against them, that their claims that it is uncertain are deliberate distractions.  Otherwise they would fund more science, not less.  It is also fairly clear that conservatives are enemies of science.

   It is no surprise.  Alternative facts do not fair well under scientific investigation. 

   0 0
6. nigelj at 10:25 AM on 20 March, 2017

   "It is also fairly clear that conservatives are enemies of science."

   Crystal clear unfortunately. Only 6% of American scientists now identify as republican, according to Pew research

   www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

   www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/

   "One of the great political shifts in the past decade has been the move of scientists toward the Democratic Party, a casualty of the Republican Party’s war on reality. It’s not about politics for scientists, it’s about the fact that only one party accepts scientific findings on everything from global warming to evolutionary theory to what does and doesn’t prevent pregnancy. Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012, 68 Nobel-winning scientists co-signed a strong endorsement of Obama, saying the President “has delivered on his promise to renew our faith in science-based decision making.”

   The latest economic data (refer to this weeks economist journal) show the econimic recovery is increasing in America and globally. Wages are rising. This shows free trade and globalisation delivering benefits and that Obamas stimulation and low interest rates, and quantitative easing are delivering benefits (not that these things are totally without problems).

   The so called "administrative state" Trump wants to destroy is clearly also delivering benefits.  Recovery is always slow after financial crashes, any economist will tell you this, so it's taken a while to come through.

   Trump risks wrecking all this. I know this seems a little off topic, but it puts in context how wrong his thinking is on so many things, and therefore how suspicious you have to be on his environmental matters.

   And what on earth are these tweets about accusing Obama of wire tapping, without even the slightest evidence? Not very dignified, more like sandpit behaviour.

   0 0
7. nigelj at 10:39 AM on 20 March, 2017

   And we can see what Trump  and his team is trying to do. It's transparently obvious. He threatens to do totally outrageous things, hoping people will settle on slightly less outrageous compromises, that are still totally destructive.

   Don't be sucked in by this crafty ignoramus. I know you guys posting above won't,  but many will be tempted.

   0 0
8. chriskoz at 11:21 AM on 20 March, 2017

   Tom Curtis@4,

   Thank you for bringing this budget analysis to my attention. I'm not surprised by its content.

   You say:

   From appearance, the only federal funding to research, mitigate or adapt climate change if those portions of the proposed budget are passed are those that have escaped the Trump administrations attention.

   But I find therein:

   One EPA climate program that would likely survive is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which measures emissions from industries around the country. Congress has mandated this monitoring, and getting rid of it would require legislative changes. So the EPA could still quantify US greenhouse gas emissions — it just couldn’t very much about it.

   (emphasis original)

   So, it might actually be that those aspects anaffected by this budget simply cannot be affected by the presidential order. No doubt the president would love to scale them back but he cannot. The case of GHG monitoring does not invalidate your point about presidential incompetence though: when he does not mention anything important, it's highly likely because he does not understand it.

   0 0
9. John Hartz at 13:39 PM on 20 March, 2017

   Recommended supplemental reading:

   4 Reasons Why the Trump Budget Cuts Won’t Happen by Ed Kilgore, The Daily Intelligencer, New York Magazine, Mar 17, 2017

   0 0
10. Xulonn at 00:23 AM on 21 March, 2017

    A couple of types of events that could tragically reveal the incompetence of the Trump administration:

    • A military incident where a lack of diplomacy and crisis management could have a devastating effect and lead to unnecessary military conflict and possibly outright war. 
    • A natural disaster such as a major hurricane, earthquake or flood that affects heavily populated areas and/or critical infrastructure. (The understanding, forecasting, and dealing with natural disasters is heavily dependent on science - which is why I am commenting on it.)

    Management of either of these types of crises requires a steady hand at the helm, and a competent and prepared staff to manage the details. Effective natural disaster management requires a willingness to examine and understand relevant science. I don't see any of these attributes in the members of current U.S. Executive Branch. 

    Michael Brown, the "horse lawyer" (a former head of the Arabian Horse Association) who was appointed to the FEMA Administrator post under President George W. Bush, had no training or experience in crisis management. "Brownie," as Bush affectionately called him, displayed an incredible lack of leadership and effectiveness in the planning for Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and managing the aftermath - as did President Bush himself. 

    With President Trump, it is even worse. Like many important appointed federal administrative positions, the offices of FEMA Administrator and Deputy Administrator are still vacant according to the FEMA website. There is currently no one at the helm for natural disaster planning and response in the U.S., and Trump himself is obviously not capable of the leadership to handle any such event. 

    Effective leadership of FEMA requires logic, reason, intelligence, a forceful personality with good communication skills, and the ability to face unpleasant realities head-on. Trump appoints only those who publically praise him, support his agenda, and basically kiss his butt - and is having trouble finding potential administrators and bureaucrats who have even a modicum of qualification. I fear that when the FEMA leadership positions are filled, it will be by totally unqualified toadies, and not top-notch qualified disaster response specialists. 

    If there is a major natural disaster - particularly in the U.S. - during Trump's term in office, I fear that there will be much unnecessary suffering, and many needless deaths.

    0 0
11. Kiwiiano at 03:44 AM on 21 March, 2017

    I've starting seeing news items featuring 'floating island cities' as a way of dealing with rising sea levels. I wonder how they plan on coping with seas like the Dorset coast photo above?

    0 0
12. nigelj at 05:20 AM on 21 March, 2017

    Xulonn @10, good points. Trump and Bannon have stated they want to deconstruct the so called administrative state. They forget these organisations are there for good reasons. 

    Of course like so many things in politics there us a small grain of truth in their criticisms. Bureaucrtaic organisations can become slow and over staffed sometimes, or in a small number of cases serve no useful purpose. But the way to fix these things is with some refined and subtle policies that scrutinise what they do, put caps on staff numbers for a period, etc.

    You don't eliminate them all, or slash their funding in an arbitrary fashion. Trump is using a sledgehammer to crack open a nut. It is driven by ideology and nothing more.

    Modern economies are complex and so will be their administrative apparatus. This is true at the level of government,and equally true within large companies. Much of the great economic advances of modern society as well as ancient societies is a direct function of the administrative state. Greece, Rome, the colonising powers, the modern consumer society, modern wealthy economies everywhere.

    The real challenge we have is running bureacracies well, not getting rid of them. It can be done, and there are ample examples around the world.

    0 0
13. william5331 at 05:57 AM on 21 March, 2017

    When the ocean circulation shuts down there will be a strong accumulation of heat in equatorial waters as this heat is not taken pole-ward.  It is highly unlikely that any reduction of emissions now will save the coral reefs.  We can only hope they will recolonize from small remaining pockets when  we get back down to, say, 250ppm.  None of us alive today will see this.  The one ring that controls them all is money in politics.  Remove this barrier and results are not guaranteed but they are possible.  Leave vested interest money in politics and we will continue sitting in the middle of the freeway with the Mac Diesel roaring down on us.

    0 0
14. nigelj at 06:45 AM on 21 March, 2017

    William @13, I have heard of the possibility of north atlantic currents slowing right down, but not so much pacific currents, and this is where many of the coral reefs are. Maybe the experts know more on this.

    But regardless, ocean temperatures dont have to change much to pose a threat to coral. There may not be much we can do now.

    I agree with your money in politics comments. It's like a log jamming up the river of progress on so many things, including climate change. But the alternative is tax payer funded election campaigns, and many people are resistant to this, and don't see how it's in their longer term interests.

    0 0
15. Wol at 11:07 AM on 22 March, 2017

    Tom Curtis @ 5:

    >>It is also fairly clear that conservatives are enemies of science.<<

    Don't fall into the same paradigm as deniers, Tom, by implying that ALL Xs are Ys.

    Because one is of a conservative disposition does not automatically mean that one's brain is offline. As a conservative I am perfectly capable of assessing the arguments and coming to the conclusion that the science is correct.

    0 0
16. Tom Curtis at 09:22 AM on 23 March, 2017

    Wol @15, you are correct.  My statement was over general, and was not believed by me in its over general interpretation.  I should more correctly have said that conservative parties are the enemies of science, and restricted that claim to the English speaking nations in the Americas and Australasia.

    0 0
17. rkrolph at 03:27 AM on 25 March, 2017

    I see Wake is on an alternative fact rant today.  Now I understand where his climate change denial is coming from.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [JH] I have just deleted a bunch of Wake's most recent posts because they were nothing more than inflamatory sloganeering.

    [DB] Due to his inability to adhere to the SKS Comments Policy, Wake has recused himself from further participation in this venue. 

18. Art Vandelay at 22:31 PM on 25 March, 2017

    Green parties can be enemies of science too, which happens when they exploit enviromnetal issues to peddle political ideology and agendas. 

    To say that conservative parties are enemies of science is not only a generalisation it's also incorrect, given that Conservatism has underpinned our entire technology era which was and is fueled by science.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Sloganeering snipped. You have posted comments on this website long enough for you to be acquainted with the SkS Comments Policy. Please adhere to it. 

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.